Clearly this guy needs another attitude adjustment as his previous one has failed.

I am one of those who believe along the lines of a quote attributed to Winston Churchill that "democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others."

But I can see examples where democracy might not be the best way to go at a particular time. Lets take Saudi Arabia as an example. Although I am definitely not normally in favour of a monarchy, let alone an absolute monarchy those who know Saudi Arabia well tell me that all the reforms in that country have taken place because of the monarchy - if there had been a democracy, the country would never have allowed women to be educated or to travel.

Plato, using Socrates as a mouthpiece in his work, The Republic, makes the point that democracy leads to worse ills - and one of his arguments is that this is because vast numbers of the population are not sufficiently educated and moderate to avoid the sweet words of the demagogues and that this leads ultimately to repression and some form of corrupt dictatorship.

I think that this is the issue for Thailand - the Thai electorate is still fairly monocultural with majority Buddhist and a Muslim minority. Like Saudi (although clearly not as conservative), this leads to a certain kind of inward-looking approach to everything - put together with the fact that a huge number of the population are still lacking education and the class system, it is no surprise that the country seems to lurch from demagogue leader to unelected leader to demagogue leader and so on.

There is no short-term solution to this. The country could try to educate the masses better and to be more outward-looking culturally. But that will take at least one generation. While I am not in favour of military governance, if this government can reduce corruption and at least make the country a bit or equitable and create opportunities for everyone, it stands a chance to generate some sort of stability.

The irony is that it is ultimately in the interest of those with power and wealth to reduce corruption and make the country more equitable and create opportunities as their wealth will rise and there will be better security and peace - but this goes against the grain of those who think that their power and wealth gives them the right to do what they want and everyone else should just keep quiet. Perhaps it is time to educate not only the masses but also the elites.

When parliamentary democracy was introduced to The UK and other European countries the level,of education was not dissimilar to current Thailand so there is no reason it cannot exist here if the army did not constantly interfere in politics. Regarding Saudi Arabia. The difference is a country that was only founded 90 years ago based on the progeny of one small tribe supported by the most extreme religious/political zealots in the world all skewed by oil wealth and oil politics. Islam and tribalism is antithetical to freedom and democracy. I don't think Thailand is the same. The Thai population is getting too educated to accept the constrictions of the power elite. The new mass media and internet generation are a threat to entrenched vested interests. They are more knowledgeable than many visitors give them credit for. Between 15 to 25 million people bothered to vote for leaders that they believed represented their interests in two elections. Their leaders were only defeated by the brute force of the entrenched powers and the rule of the gun. Democracy did work here, albeit imperfectly, until the shameful 2008 airport occupation and the the slaughter of demonstrators two years later. Yeah sure it's complicated and messy but military rule is no answer. If it was we would welcome it in the rest of the world. For those of us whom have had experience of military life and management, we know it is dreadful, inefficient, incompetent, subject to corruption and its mentality is a produce of war. The best solution for a Democratic Thailand would be elections overseen by European election agents to start the ball rolling combined with treason and the death sentence being applied to any military involved coups.