Thai Army chief's remark draws strong criticism

The country does have the right to throw out a government but only via an electoral process.

Apologies for cutting out most of your post - but I would be interested to know your opinion on this.

If a government (and i'm not being specific to Thailand here) is generally making a complete mess of running the country and the population are unhappy. And the next election is a few years away. Do you think that the people have to put up with 2 more years of incompetent government before they can reject them electorally or should they be more pro active?

I guess what i'm alluding to is which is more important - democracy or competent rule?

I think if people are so unhappy then the Government would be forced into holding an election, so people could vote them out.

Which is what happened in this case, but unfortunately the main opposition did not participate, and the election was nullified.

This is so wrong, if the main opposition did not want to be involved in the election, then that is their problem, the rest of the population are entitled to vote and should have been allowed to, and the final count made relevant. Opposition or not, it is clear that the Dems knew before the election that the court would side with them, therefore there was no risk in their boycott, to themselves.............We cannot win, but neither will the popular party. Simple is'nt it !