Democracy is perhaps one of the most overused, abused and confusing terms in Thai politics. Coup-makers, corrupt politicians, ultra-royalists, die-hard supporters of former PM Thaksin Shinawatra, vote buyers and sellers as well as the autocrats all claim that they're committed to democracy.

When was the last time a coup-maker was heard saying he was not for democracy? All, including those who staged the last military coup in 2006, say they're committed to restoring democracy - whatever that means in reality.

Corrupt politicians who buy votes and those who readily sell their vote say they too are doing it for democracy.

The academics and political activists that I have met over the past few years declare that they are for democracy, although deep down inside they clearly prefer the "enlightened and unelected elite" on the seat of power.

Both the yellow and the red-shirt movements claim the other side is obstructing their fight for democracy.

At a recent Foreign Correspondents Club of Thailand talk, Samana Bodhirak, leader of the Santi Asoke Buddhist sect, was asked what his ideal democratic system would be now that he has denounced the Democrat Party for being undemocratic. His answer was that even if the country were to be ruled by a dictator who is selfless and does good for the society, then it would be an ideal democracy.

Perhaps, it is "unacceptable" in Thailand to be undemocratic, which is why everyone is beating the democracy drum.

Judging from how frequently the word is uttered, Thailand should already have become "totally", maybe even "overwhelmingly" democratic. But is it?

The painful truth is that a society cannot achieve democracy and resolve its political differences by simply reciting one word - democracy - ad infinitum.

Perhaps we need brave and honest people, be they the army generals who are interested in coups, the thin faced academics or the demonstrators, who have something else deep in their hearts and are just waiting to talk about it.

It has become almost as unsayable in Thailand to admit that I am not for democracy as much as for one to confess he or she is for a republic. *

[Writer's Note: The paragraph was edited out by The Nation and only restored here on Prachatai for readers.]

Upon closer examination, it appears that a good number of the educated Thais prefer some sort of "guided democracy", where a small number of supposedly enlightened and selfless elites, bureaucrats, technocrats and generals, be they elected or not, run the Kingdom with little or no insight.

The poor and the less educated people talk about a "tangible democracy", under which the poor benefit from the state, like the controversial ones that were made popular by Thaksin. In cases like this, the issue of vote buying or corruption is of a lesser concern, because all parties are corrupt to a greater or lesser extent.

Then there are the people who also genuinely believe that staging a military coup every now and then strengthens Thai democracy by providing a "clean slate" for development.

Somewhere along the line, some of these versions no longer make the cut, because the term "democracy" ends up representing something that is quite the opposite.

When the notion of democracy is twisted to the point of becoming something else altogether, like autocracy, can we really say that democracy has triumphed?

Cloaking autocratic tendencies under different shades of democracy will only the stunt the development of true democracy.

What Thailand really needs is proper and honest debates - both from the left and right side of politics - about which political system would best work the country. Politicians need to speak their minds, without the fear of losing face or getting persecuted, if true democracy is to even be contemplated.