Some might indicate my point could be seen to be as clear as a good deal of yours.

It may be said I need not elaborate.

I think even jayboy would complain.

How can someone see your point as a good deal of mine?

Of course it may be said you need not elaborate since you didn't say anything worthwhile anyway, it would seem.

BTW you are replying to me it would seem, but you do not care to do a proper reply. as such you might either not want a reply, or fear one, or just muddle around. So far when I ask what you meant you only seem to be vague about that yourself.

Anyway, the 1932 revolt, a coup led by four tigers.

There are several reasons for this fear coming from the anti-democrats.

The events of 1932 embarrasses and threatens them, for they are evidence of different views on politics. Much of the work of those fearful of Democracy currently and since 1957, has been about erasing the ideals of the original People's Party.

The 1932 'revolution' was a military-led coup d'etat fomented by a very small group of participants with little popular support. The Thai military today consider themselves the rightful 'owners' of the Revolution and Thai democracy.

Hence in their eyes the military retain the right to mount coups any time they deem it necessary. They're merely carrying on a tradition born in 1932.

I would disagree with your characterization of the 1932 revolution as well as how the military view themselves - today and over the last 83 years.

On the other hand, it is clear that the military retain the right to mount coups whenever they deem it necessary - I'm with you on that 100%

There are several reasons for this fear coming from the anti-democrats.

The events of 1932 embarrasses and threatens them, for they are evidence of different views on politics. Much of the work of those fearful of Democracy currently and since 1957, has been about erasing the ideals of the original People's Party.

The 1932 'revolution' was a military-led coup d'etat fomented by a very small group of participants with little popular support. The Thai military today consider themselves the rightful 'owners' of the Revolution and Thai democracy.

Hence in their eyes the military retain the right to mount coups any time they deem it necessary. They're merely carrying on a tradition born in 1932.

I would disagree with your characterization of the 1932 revolution as well as how the military view themselves - today and over the last 83 years.

On the other hand, it is clear that the military retain the right to mount coups whenever they deem it necessary - I'm with you on that 100%

It's not my characterization. The written history of the 1932 events clearly describes a military coup.

As for how the military view themselves, it's difficult to say and I would agree that it's speculation. However, I have known several Thai career military men over the last 40 years who have expressed such an opinion, including an admiral in the Royal Thai Navy and a Royal Thai Army major in charge of the southern command before Thaksin handed control over to the police for a few years.

Perhaps their views were anomalous, but the perspective goes a long way towards explaining coup frequency in Thailand and the flagrant disregard for constitutions. I believe that in the first 28 years after the 1932 coup, there were 16 different constitutions. Something like that.

Even Wikipedia, referencing Judith Stowe's Siam Becomes Thailand: A Story of Intrigue (1991), recounts the core events as a coup:

The Promoters realized, ironically, as the king's advisors had done, that the Siamese people were not yet ready for democracy, and most were illiterate peasants with little concern for affairs in Bangkok.[42] In Bangkok itself, the new and emerging middle class was dependent on the patronage of the aristocracy for jobs and positions. As a result, they realized that a "mass revolution" was not possible and only a military-led coup d'état was possible. For this purpose a political party was formed and it was named the Khana Ratsadon (คณะราษฎร) (or the People's Party).

Not a lot has changed since then in terms of how the Promoters' military heirs view Thais' readiness for democracy, rightly or wrongly.