The highly controversial election, it seems, will go ahead despite lingering questions and looming uncertainties. It may be hard for the People's Alliance for Democracy to accept, but Prem was sending a message: the time is not right for a royally appointed prime minister, unless something really, really bad happens.

What's happening is already bad, but apparently the Privy Council, reported to have informed His Majesty the King of the PAD's petition for a royal appointee to lead Thailand temporarily through this turmoil, believes it is still within democracy's self-correcting mechanisms to straighten things out. An election, a fundamental process of democracy, is under way and there is no way any kind of interference, no matter how well intentioned, can escape serious scrutiny and criticism.

Most of all, ballot-box democracy is based on the one-man-one-vote principle. The PAD may have been equipped with all the voices that "matter", but Thaksin Shinawatra, somewhat ironically, is using one of democracy's key features to his best advantage. With continued strong backing from poor people, he managed to keep all opinion leaders in the land and the disillusioned middle class at bay. It's like he is saying: "If you think you are democratic, how can you ignore the voices of the likes of taxi motorcyclists and farmers who support me?"

The dilemma is highly complicated. Thaksin's charismatic appeal has changed a decades-old pattern of Thai politics: the grass roots elected governments, and the middle class overthrew them. But not this time - or at least not yet.

If the Privy Council has really decided against a royal intervention, which many experts believe is allowable under Article 7 of the Constitution, its move, though lamentable as far as the PAD is concerned, is understandable. What constitutes a "political crisis" that warrants invocation of Article 7? Corruption? Every government is corrupt, more or less. Dictatorship? Thaksin has just called a snap election.

Unfortunately, what Democrat leader Abhisit Vejjajiva has to say about this has not been widely publicised. At his party's rally at Sanam Luang on Friday, the young politician hit the nail on the head when he took pains to explain why trying to stop Thaksin is not stopping democracy. According to Abhisit, there are times when a man's power can outgrow the system, and that's what is happening in this Kingdom. Democracy, he insisted, is not just about elections, but also about good checks and balances, which have been all but wiped out by an elected leader.

Thais are facing a virtually unbreakable paradox. How can we salvage democracy if attempting to get rid of its alleged destroyer is perceived as rolling back the nation's democratic progress? It can be that complicated, or it can be this simple: Thaksin is not democracy. Abhisit points out that he's just a man who is rich, powerful and smart enough to exploit our fledgling but flawed system. Strong democratic principles and effective checks and balances would end Thaksin's career at the first scrutiny, when he was found to have stashed huge chunks of his assets in servants' and secret accounts and failed to report them to the anti-graft agency.

Looking at the bright side, the Privy Council, if it has made up its mind, is giving democracy one last chance to heal itself. After all, the system is not just about the election. The large numbers of people gathering around Government House yesterday and over the past few days are also an essential part of democracy. Maybe the uprising against Thaksin is a sign that "real" democracy is struggling to shake itself free from misrule and exploitation. All we can do is hope the process is not too violent or painful.