Thailand heaved a collective sigh of relief yesterday that the tens of thousands of anti-Thaksin protesters who marched on a heavily guarded Government House the night before avoided clashing with security forces assigned to protect the seat of government power. Protest organisers and peaceful demonstrators alike should be commended for strict adherence to their self-imposed principle of non-violence, while credit also goes to the Royal Thai Police, which was responsible for peacekeeping and security, for their restraint and discipline.

The possibility of violent confrontation increased once frustrated anti-Thaksin protesters moved from Sanam Luang to Government House by way of Democracy Monument. There were tense moments when protesters were stopped in their track by a severely undermanned police security cordon. In the end, the cordon was removed after negotiations with protest leaders, and protesters were allowed to gather peacefully outside.

Cool heads and reason prevailed. Protest leaders and police came to an understanding that protesters would be allowed to demonstrate at Government House on condition that they agreed to return to Sanam Luang, where a considerable number planned to spend the night and resume their protest there the next morning. The arrangement worked this time and thus untoward incidents were avoided.

Remarkable though it may seem, the peaceful nature of Sunday night's demonstration and the sensible crowd-control tactics employed by police were never any guarantee that violent confrontation would not occur. Protester leaders and government security chiefs had a great responsibility on their shoulders to ensure that violence would not be used to settle their political differences.

Protest leaders must ensure that citizens' constitutionally sanctioned rights to freedom of speech and freedom of peaceful assembly are exercised responsibly and within legal boundaries. They must realise that their choice of non-violent means to bring about dramatic political change, such as the removal of the country's head of government, requires an inordinate level of discipline and fortitude, based on an unshakeable and demonstrable moral superiority to the party they oppose.

The protesters' most valuable asset in their struggle against Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, whom they describe as tyrannical and corruption-prone, is their ability to take the moral high ground in criticising the PM for his numerous transgressions against democracy and the public. Their most effective weapon is their power of persuasion in trying to convince the general public why they believe Thaksin has already lost his legitimacy to rule as a democratic leader.

Indeed, the anti-Thaksin movement has already pulled off a remarkable feat with its intellectual discourse, which has helped focus public debate on the most important question of the day: the quality of democratic leadership, and this goes far beyond the country's facade of parliamentary democracy. These past five years, Thailand's democracy has been distorted, undermined and exploited by Thaksin, who wields  unparalleled powers of patronage.

The movement has since been embraced by civil society, including academics and a wide cross-section of the public at large. And the politically powerful middle class has been awakened from its political apathy and galvanised into action, with many members taking to the streets to voice their personal opposition to Thaksin's "misrule".

The opposition Democrat Party and its allies have announced a boycott of the snap election scheduled for April 2, and this has placed Thaksin and his Thai Rak Thai Party in a tight corner.

The ongoing political conflict between the activists and an ever-defiant prime minister who by all accounts continues to enjoy enormous popularity among the rural masses has polarised the nation. The increasing tensions in recent weeks have resulted in protests and counter-protests by the two sides that have in turn increased the danger of violent confrontation. This deadlock may be frustrating and infuriating, but it must be made clear to any would-be instigators of violence that whichever side they belong to, they cannot hope to carry the day through the use of force. Modern political history is full of examples proving that.