The scale of the phenomenon had not occurred since NGOs were formed and became commonplace some three decades ago.

Difficult questions were asked and fierce debate occurred. This was followed by the drawing of a line that led to a loss of respect and friendship among many prominent activists and intellectuals, mostly from the younger generation, who refused to condone, never mind support, the September 19 coup as legitimate, pragmatic or beneficial for the future of democracy in Thailand.

On one side stood the larger and mostly older generation of activists who accepted the coup that ousted the corrupt former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra as either a fait accompli or simply condoned it.

This group is willing to work with the junta and its appointed government led by Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont, and some have been appointed by the coup leaders to the National Legislative Assembly (NLA) or the National People's Assembly (NPA).

In accepting their appointments, these figures see this as the only way to influence the military regime and steer it in a more desirable direction, instead of allowing it to have carte blanche in running the state's affairs.

They see it as the most pragmatic way forward and regard those who oppose and condemn them as idealist, if not democratic fundamentalists.

Those of the younger generation who refused to condone or recognise the legitimacy of the coup and its appointed government, say the mostly senior activists and intellectuals have betrayed the people by working with the junta. They don't see those who work with the coup makers as pragmatic, but as either misguided intellectuals who have abandoned the democratic principle or simply a naive lot of old, increasingly conservative activists who wrongly believe that something good can actually come out of a coup.

Their action is also seen as an invitation for more coups in the future.

Former senator Jon Ungphakorn asked in December whether those refusing to have anything to do with the coup were being extremist or not. But members of the younger generation, such as the September 19 anti-coup network, think that accepting the coup as a "solution" to the political deadlock is also a very extreme way of solving a problem in itself.

Another ongoing debate is about the style of Thai democracy, where the role of the educated elite is being supported above the majority of the populace, who are seen as being prone to electoral manipulation.

Likewise, the question being asked by the anti-coup groups is whether the so-called 'Thai-style democracy' is actually a democracy or merely neo-aristocracy masquerading as a native form of benign and heavily guided "democracy".

Towards the end of the year, people like Chulalongkorn University sociologist Surichai Wungaew, who has been appointed to the NLA, were publicly humiliated when asked by the famed Chiang Mai University historian Nidhi Eiwsriwong, in front of many academics: "Have you sold your soul?"

Away from the limelight, a Bangkok-based NGO working for democracy in Burma was caught in a fierce internal debate as to whether the Thai staff should work to oppose the Thai junta and its regime. A senior Thai staff member insisted the organisation didn't have the mandate to do so. Younger staff members were alienated and took it as a betrayal of the democratic principle.

They chose to go their own way by joining anti-coup protests and are contemplating leaving the organisation.

In another incident, Thammasat University political scientist Thanet Wongyanawa said during a symposium after the September coup, that many people like him have to chose between democratic principles and personal friendship, as friends are pitted against one another over their stance towards the coup.

"I have no difficulty in choosing friends over principles, however," said Thanet.

Others chose principle, and in effect their respect, and even their ties to those working with the coup makers, have diminished.

In reality, the line began to be drawn early in 2006, when a number of NGO activists and intellectuals joined what became the anti-Thaksin People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD). The alliance led mass demonstrations and set a pretext for the coup, as one of its leaders, media mogul Sondhi Limthongkul, had earlier agitated for the Army to intervene. The PAD's call for royal intervention was answered through the coup.

There were also those who do not believe the monarchy should be entangled in politics and have been deeply ambivalent about the role of "pro-monarchy democracy demonstrations" staged by the PAD.

This led to organisations such as the Campaign for Popular Democracy (CPD) - which joined the PAD leadership through Pibhop Dhongchai and Suriyasai Katasila but didn't publicly denounce the coup - to be publicly regarded by anti-coup activists as a de facto anti-democratic group.

The main consequence of 2006 is that civil society has become more divided than ever. Not since the end of the Cold War and the anti-communism era has civil society been this divided. People have speculated that the situation may weaken the people's movement if such antagonism continues.

However, the same events also gave rise to a younger generation of activists and intellectuals who have come of age and are willing to put principle above personal ties and respect for seniority. 

What's more, it forced everyone to consider the crucial questions of their own democratic principles and how Thailand should move forward and where one stands.

Pravit Rojanaphruk

The Nation