However, the opposition should take some blame too in the fall of Thai democracy. By repeatedly disputing the legitimacy of the April elections in the courts and being adamant about the removal of Thaksin at all costs, the opposition raised the fatigue of the populace's support for a democratic system which requires for all political actors to respect institutionalized rules and the electoral outcomes. Even more shockingly, opposition Senator Mechai Viravaidya welcomed Mr Thaksin's departure, despite doubts about the methods used. "I'm delighted he's gone," he told the BBC. "It would have been great if he had resigned voluntarily, but apparently he was too stubborn. But at least it's better than an assassination." In the words of Professor Juan Linz of Yale University and Professor Alfred Stephan of Columbia University, for a democracy to consolidate constitutionally, all significant actors must be habituated to the rule of law where democracy becomes "the only game in town." Clearly, some members of the "democratic" opposition in Thailand do not think so.

What are the ramifications of the fall of Thailand's democracy then for the world? First, there would likely be economical instability and uncertainty in the coming days in Thailand. Stock markets are predicted to fall across the regions and it is unsure whether the new regime would be committed to open markets as Thaksin's government was.

Second, the coup might set back the democratization of the ASEAN region severely. Thailand, under a democratic regime, plays an important role in encouraging the Burmese government to open up economically, socially and politically. Will it continue to play this role under a military regime? What will happen to the National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma, a government-in-exile based in Thailand?

In addition, will the Malaysian, Singapore and Indonesian government be affected by the collapse of the Thaksin's government in Thailand and reverse the current credible process of opening up their polity?

Third, for the United States, Thailand has always been seen as a stabilizing and democratic force in a region that has seen transitions to democracy, political instability and continual repression of basic human rights in recent years. Will the region be less secure with Thailand under a military regime? The larger question to ask is "will the regional grouping of the Association of South East Asia Nations (ASEAN) be taken seriously if one of its main leaders may become less committed to international norms and values?"

More importantly for Thailand, will it see another exodus of brain drain such as the times where seventeen coups that took place between 1932 and 1991 in Thailand? As Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore points out in his autobiography, From Third World to First, Thailand has been blessed with cosmopolitan and highly educated political leaders in recent history. Will this continue if academic and social freedoms are undermined in Thailand under this new regime?

It might be wise to heed the words of Larry Diamond, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, in his recent Straits Times article, "We need to think more critically about how democracy and good governance can be achieved together, rather than yield to the illusion that if people surrender their freedom, they will get peace, prosperity and justice in return."