Again, the ruin of checks and balances was not acknowledged. And as usual, if The Economist ever suspected there might be some truth in the charges by the "mobs" in regard to massive graft, it never showed.

All we've heard is it's the protesters' fault: "Thais are paying a heavy price for the opposition's dismissal of April's election result." "[Thailand] has taken a big step backwards." "Once you start allowing demonstrators who number in thousands to throw out politicians who have been elected by millions, the fabric of any democracy is bound to fray, let alone one that has existed for only 14 years and still lies under the shadow of crown and gun."

With all due respect, corruption - the important word that has gone missing in recent Economist editorials - started it all. The Economist has the right to call the demonstrators democracy's worst enemy, but we beg to differ. To the Thais who took to the streets and in the process endured international condemnation for being "undemocratic", the real enemy of democracy is the abuse of faith and power for personal gain.

When a popularly elected leader thinks he can do anything and place himself above the law, using the votes he got as a political shield, then the fabric of any democracy is bound to fray, let alone one that has struggled against such corrupt powers that be for so long. Democracy gives us the right to rise against corruption. It gives us the right to boycott any election we fear could reinforce the evil in our political system. And our Constitution, the fundamental part of our democracy, gives us the right to protest and resist peacefully as long as we want.

Our Constitution prohibits conflicts of interest and is very specific about that. It aims at strengthening checks and balances and promoting the role of citizenship. It encourages free speech. It seeks to empower a previously feeble system as well as the Thai public to fight that formidable enemy: corruption.

Who has been our Constitution's biggest enemy all along? Before branding the demonstrators a destructive mob and portraying Thaksin as a victim, perhaps The Economist should have addressed that question. Once a Constitution is breached and its enshrined spirit ignored, the fabric of any democracy is bound to fray.

When Thaksin and his wife were found to have stashed Bt10 billion worth of shares in his servants' accounts, this Constitution was screaming, "STOP HIM!" But whereas The Economist at that time sounded a major warning over his "insuperable conflicts of interest" and his "alarmingly undemocratic instincts", Thais forgave him, because - just as The Economist of today would have been pleased about - he had won a landslide election victory. Thais tolerated his contempt for human rights and other democratic principles and massive graft scandals for the same reason: he had been endorsed by so many of the electorate.

After sounding the alarm in 2001, The Economist changed its tone last year. "We owe Thaksin Shinawatra an apology," it said in an editorial just as he was cruising to another landslide poll win. It praised his populist policies and gave him a lot of credit for the resurgent economy.

But the magazine ended it with a noble punch-line: "Successful democracies require checks and balances, and the biggest worries about Mr Thaksin all relate to the absence of them." What happened to that ideology? With all the people who mattered in Thailand - outside the government, of course - lamenting the destruction of checks and balances over here, what happened to The Economist?

What if Tony Blair owned England's largest telecom firm? What if he hid some shares in his servants' stock accounts and a mysterious offshore firm for no good reason? What if those shares enabled him to evade taxes or exposed him to charges of stock manipulation? What if other British had to pay taxes for similar share transfers, but he didn't? What if parliament couldn't censure him? Questions like this go on and on where Thaksin is concerned, but the ultimate question to The Economist is: "Would you tolerate it?"

If the answer to those questions from such advanced democracy advocates like The Economist is "Yes", then sorry. To democratically ill-educated Thais - you all but call us so - the answer is a painful but uncompromising "No!"

Tulsathit Taptim