Thailand had had many military coups, played unsavoury role facilitating Americans' extraordinary renditions and tortures of detainess, and did not suffer much. Investors would rather flee elections in democratic India than leave military ruled Thailand. The only consequences for Bangkok regime will be: 1. The question of succession as 82-year old Rama IX is increasingly isolated. 2. Negative coverage of Thailand in foreign media.
And does the military remain loyal to the King and current prime minister or have they had their traditional allegiance subverted by US military aid and the concomitant indoctrination in the benefits of "reform" along lines favorable to US business interests?
It is a sad fact that Thailand's 1997 "liberal democratic" constitution was so easily subverted by the likes of Thaksin, and the country seems indeed caught between a rock and a hard place: reactionary traditionalists and crony capitalists. And we're not even talking about the muslim-majority regions in the far south of the country, which appear increasingly detached from Bangkok regardless of which of the two factions has the upper hand in the capital. Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith
Thaksin's crony capitalists likely don't have the interests of the rural poor at heart, but they have directed some small slivers of money towards improving life out in the sticks (mostly road and water projects, alongside some corrupt gimmickry connected to various crony businesses - satellite TV springs to mind.)
Another sad fact is that both sides have indulged in military clampdowns on the Muslim regions with all the horrors that "war on insurgency" usually brings...
