Thaksin Shinawatra not getting the Person of the Year title - how on earth could that be? That year belonged to the man, undeniably and unequivocally. Growth of more than 6 per cent, one of the highest rates in Asia, a successful, albeit controversial crackdown on drugs, unprecedented consolidation of political power, the new heights of populism and mind-boggling political agendas like the planned purchase of Liverpool Football Club. To mention just a few.

How many leaders in this world can rule and sell stuff and buy government properties and recycle everything for personal and political benefits all at the same time? How many democratically elected leaders can pour scorn on democracy, show contempt for human rights, install relatives in the top armed-forces posts, destroy the country's system of checks and balances, reap tremendous benefits for their own business empires and yet still manage to remain highly popular? How many world leaders can cast such an inescapable net of influence on their citizens? One way or another, his cheap homes, his cheap healthcare, his cheap computers, his cheap insurance, his scholarships, his low-budget airline, his bank, his hospital, his TV, his radio, his personal loans, his entertainment, his phone bills were affecting our lives like no political produce of Thailand had ever done.

Through clenched jaws, our editorial department forced itself not to recognise the forming of the biggest political empire the country had ever known. "Amid Thaksin's looming omnipresence, something important is lacking" was our rationale, or a mere message of defiance if you like. "Over the past year, the role of citizenship has receded alarmingly. The rights to participate, to air grievances, to demand transparency, or to criticise have all but vanished. Since the Thanom regime, Thais have clamoured and fought for those rights, giving up their lives and shedding blood and tears along the way, but now it's "Believe the leader and the nation will survive" all over again."

Cue 2006 and the dilemma of three years ago suddenly seems small. This passing year has seen Thaksin virtually consume everyone, prior to and after his political demise. A schoolgirl drew a satirical cartoon of "Ai Na Liam" for her mother. A taxi driver committed suicide to protest his fate. Cabbies pulled over to throw out his opponents in the middle of their trips. Members of countless families became estranged debating his pros and cons. Friendships soured doing the same.

Hundreds of thousands of largely middle-class people joined protracted weeks-long protests against him around Government House. An election was boycotted by opposition parties and a large portion of voters marked abstention. Journalists and newspapers took unprecedented hard-line stances against him, giving birth to proclaimed alternative media outlets. And it was not just limited to Thais.

A western diplomat, stunned by our anti-Thaksin aggressiveness, walked into The Nation's newsroom to virtually give a lecture on the danger of media over-zealousness. "Diplomatic" functions often turned into anything but at the mere mention of his name. The Economist called his downfall a big blow to democracy, a stand joined by most western media in the wake of the September 19 coup.

His Majesty was restless and deeply worried. The judges were called upon to resolve a deadlocked crisis. The long-subdued military eventually woke up and seized the bull by the horns, for better or worse. The world was shocked and bewildered. And if Thaksin's rule had caused a great divide, its end and consequences have expanded it beyond any reconciliation.

So, why not him again this time? For unprecedented national obsession alone, he should have easily won the Person of the Year title. And that is the least justification still. He has divided Thailand like no-one ever did, provoked military intervention in politics, placed the future of his motherland in the balance and triggered world-wide debate about democracy. Why not him?

Of course, our rationale could be seen as another message of defiance. In our view, Thaksin has failed democracy, despite having successive wonderful chances to make it blossom. He hid behind two great election results, and even exploited them to maximum effect here and abroad, at the expense of democracy's true essence.

Worse still, he somehow demonised genuine goodwill to establish long-term accountability, transparency, justice and good, effective checks and balances in Thai politics. Somehow, it was not the tens of billions of baht worth of blatant graft that brought tanks onto the streets on September 19, but snobbish middle-class mobs jealous of the mega, untaxable sell-off of Shin Corp. Thais clamouring for strong foundations of democracy so the country could break free from a vicious corruption-coup circle were branded an ill-advised disruptive element that set the clock back on Thailand.

And worst of all, he fouled democracy and made it mortal. A beautiful, romantic ideology that often inspired faith and hope was smeared with brutal reality. "Politicians are politicians - they are corrupt more or less" is one of the regular lines used to justify him and denounce the coup makers. "People will learn - if not at this election, then it should be the next." "At least it's better than dictatorship." "Disposing of him undemocratically will put the country on a slippery slope."

Democracy gave him two glorious chances to advance Thailand on the right and solid path, yet he abused and betrayed it. He reduced Thai democracy to the same levels as "lesser" ideologies because he tried to make it accommodate corruption on a grand scale.

For his betrayal of democracy, his cunning way of blurring the issue and shrewd method of deflecting the blame, we decided against making him "Person of the Year" for 2006. Most of all, if democracy has to stoop so low to defend someone who had nothing but contempt for its true values and principles, the "slippery slope" will be bottomless indeed. Not for Thailand, of course, but democracy itself.

Tulsathit Taptim

The Nation