In recent times, "democracy" is a word that has been thrown around more often than a ping pong ball in Patpong - and suffers about the same level of degradation.

From words in the pubs to letters in Postbag, to the reports by foreign correspondents and commentaries by the esteemed editors of various prestigious western media, everyone has an opinion on what democracy is, and that it either does not exist in Thailand, or has been battered and abused into something quite undemocratic.

From the observations of many non-Thais, opinions have ranged anywhere from disbelief to disdain and downright disgust at what is going on with the democracy of this Kingdom. With harsh words and brutal assaults, slamming and insulting the Kingdom, and with it, my fellow countrymen.

Well, allow me to address our foreign critics and help form an understanding of how we got into this mess. Though by all means, this observation is one man's humble opinion offered up to be considered, discussed and debated; nothing less, nothing more.

In the West, democracy is a tradition of over 2,000 years old, although it had taken a nap for centuries before it was rediscovered. One may trace the origin of modern democracy to the French Revolution (1782), the American Revolution (1776), or even the signing of the Magna Carta (1215). But no matter which event one would like to attribute modern democracy to, it is unarguable that Western democracy has been several centuries in the making and written by numerous conflicts and much bloodshed.

So if the West has gone through centuries of mistakes, of trials and tribulations, to arrive at a healthy, though imperfect system of modern democracy, why can't Thailand embrace the finished product, packaged with a beautiful ribbon? Well, it's not that we don't want to.

To understand where we are now, one must look at the historical evolution of Thailand since the conversion to constitutional monarchy in 1932.

From our first prime minister, Praya Manopakorn Nititada, to our latest, Somchai Wongsawat, in the 76 years since there have been 36 prime ministers, most of whom were "appointees", by the military or otherwise.

There were many reasons behind these "appointees", military or otherwise, not least of which was the influence of the superpowers and their Cold War chess match. Like the majority of the Third World, we were but a pawn served up on a platter with a side order of freedom fries by our leaders, to be exploited in the name of democracy against the rising tides of communism. Never mind the fact that we ourselves were ruled by military dictators for much of that time.

It wasn't until 1988 when we sustained a succession of "elected" leaders, starting with the government of General Chartchai Chunhawan.

Only for 20 years had the electoral process been able to sustain breathing room in this Kingdom, minus the hiccups in Black May 1992 and the 2006 coup. Is the Thai democracy young and fragile? It's a sickly, crying toddler in an incubator. So why, I ask you, would anyone look at an infant in an incubator with disdain and disgust?

Through much of our history in the 20th century, the overwhelming majority of the Thai population were peasant farmers, the backbone of the Kingdom, who wouldn't know a democracy from a tamagochi. How could they? With little to no education, their primary concerns were simply feeding and clothing their children? Democratic ideals are the luxury of the "haves", the "have nots" hold graver concerns. Is that so unbelievable? So disdainful? So disgusting?

It was only the economic boom of the late 1980s and 1990s, the advances in communication technology and globalisation, that saw the burgeoning middle class. Western education, or education period, was no longer the privilege of the elites.

Be that as it may, not unlike the period of Industrial Revolution in the West, the people were much more infatuated with the newfound riches than the ideals of democracy. Human nature: a pile of cash on the table versus some lofty ideal, which would the average Somchai and Somying one generation removed from the rice field (or the villages of Communist China) choose? Is that so disdainful, so disgusting, so unbelievable?

The infant may be wearing Gucci and the incubator may be the latest Mercedes model, but the fact is, in the 1990s Thailand's democracy was still just an infant in the incubator. As such, we were easily exploited by corrupt leaders, thrifty merchants (local and foreign) and, of course, our own greed. That is disdainful and disgusting, but which country has never gone through such a period? Like puberty, it isn't pretty, but it's a natural process of evolution.

With the Asian financial crisis of 1997, we woke up and realised that we simply exchanged "appointees", military or otherwise, for opportunistic thugs and gangsters, who knew about running a country and economy as much as we Thais know how to queue up in orderly fashion to board/deboard the Sky Train. They simply sneaked into office while the educated middle class were too busy having a bubble bath.

Then it happened. Clouds parted, Beethoven's Symphony No 3 echoed out of nowhere, the birds and the bees chanted, "hallelujah, hallelujah, hallelujah"! For the messiah had arrived! He was not a general, nor a gangster. He was a businessman who built a telecommunication empire with his own hands.

For a society that had embraced capitalism for only a little over a decade, we were googoo and gaagaa over him like he was some K-pop heartthrob. For the first time in the history of Thailand, the rich, the poor and those in between agreed on one thing: Thaksin Shinawatra was our man.

Chuan Leekpai was solid, but he was a plain housewife. This new guy was Paris Hilton on steroids. Is it so unbelievable, so disdainful, so disgusting? Infant in an incubator, we were lost lambs, confused and desperate, then came our shepherd, our saviour, all glittery in golden lights.

And well, you know the rest of the story.

Here we are in 2008. Duped and deceived, scarred and full of scorn. Conflict in all levels of society. Flocking to the banner of the PAD are simply people who have had enough. Sure, the leaders of the PAD are questionable. Sure, many of the PAD's tactics are unsavoury. But allow me to speak for the average Thai person - rich, middle and poor - we marched simply because we have had enough.

Similar to Black May 1992. Then we marched because we wanted no more military dictatorship, but now we march because we want no more greedy money merchants and their thuggish cronies.

Is this undermining democracy? There is no democracy to undermine. We never had it. Democracy isn't just about going to the poll and voting. Democracy isn't about smiling as you are getting screwed over once again. That may be fine for countries with healthy, but imperfect democracy. But here, in this corner of the Third World, we are tired of taking it lying down and are simply saying enough is enough.

They don't hand out democracy at the local mom and pop store, and it isn't on sale at Central or Paragon. One must fight for it.

It's an ugly fight. But is there such a thing as a pretty fight? Definitely, there isn't anything democratic about a fight, just ask the Coalition of the Willing. At least we avoid bloodshed as best we can. Granted, a lot of us aren't even sure what we're fighting for, a lot of us are simply venting frustrations and anger, but at least we're conscious and alive enough to stand up and fight.

Certainly there are and will be mistakes to overcome, trials and tribulations to triumph over in the road ahead. As I wrote in my first commentary on Sept 14, we Thais also have to look at ourselves and start the change with ourselves, not just point fingers at our corrupt leaders.

Is it so unbelievable, disdainful, disgusting? For those who are understanding, we thank you. For those who are not, please take no offence. You don't have to help us, or support us, constructive criticisms are welcomed and appreciated. But beg your pardon, please do not insult us. Especially if you are a guest in our country.