Almost two weeks on, many in the educated elite and the upper middle class who oppose and abhor Thaksin Shinawatra and his younger sister Yingluck and the red shirts might still be in shock at the landslide electoral victory of the Pheu Thai Party on July 3. Some might even be praying that certain "benign" interventions, be they from the Election Commission, the Army, or the so-called "invisible hand/s", may still save their day.

It is anyone's guess as to how many of these people are thinking about the new emerging reality of Thai society, however. Perhaps not many, at least judging from the post-electoral ranting about the end of the old social order.

Yes, the old social order is crumbling, giving way to a new society where voices of the poor and marginalised who constitute the majority of the Thai population are heard, most notably through general elections.

Whether the often-cited statistics that tell us that the top 20 per cent of the population owns 80 per cent of the national wealth is accurate or not, there is no denying that social, economic and political inequality is a real and pressing issue. Bangkok may be voted repeatedly over the years as one of the world's best travel destinations, but if you are poor workers in the metropolis earning a minimum wage and cannot afford to ride the subway or taxis regularly and live in poor housing conditions, then Bangkok is definitely no heaven.

What's more, the majority of the rural and urban poor must endure repeated verbal attacks, degrading words portraying them as stupid, corrupt and unfit to vote.

People in the upper echelon of Thai society can try to resist and keep the poor and exploited where they are - but this is almost certainly a recipe for greater political conflict that would make last year's April-May political unrest that led to at least 91 deaths, 2,000 injuries and arson a mild prologue of what's to come.

There exist several reasons that might persuade the conservative elite and the upper middle class to change and take part in drafting a new social contract that is more equitable, transparent and accountable for all.

First, the desire for change from the top can be due to self-preservation, through the fear of a full-blown civil war. Thai society will simply tear itself apart if poor people are kept where they are: repressed, depressed, poor, without genuine freedom of expression, and without empathy from the upper and middle classes. The masses' rejection of the September 2006 military coup, their rage during the April-May protest in 2010 and their determination to vote for Thaksin's Pheu Thai Party speak volumes about their yearning for a greater political voice, bigger economic pie and social respect.

By now, the more enlightened among the elite and the middle class might have concluded that giving the masses a more equal political voice and economic share will actually be better for Thailand as a whole. This is the second rationale.

The third and last reason is the most ideal of the three. It is the recognition that the masses are human too, just like us, and each life, each vote, should be treated and valued equally.

Electoral democracy is far from perfect and yet it's the best system there is today because the majority of the people can decide whether to bring in or get rid of their representatives. Not all are convinced that those on top of the pyramid support reform, however. A well-respected judge ran into this writer on Monday and said the elite were just too entrenched. They would cook up yet another ultra-royalist fear that would resemble the events of October 6, 1976.

I can only hope he is wrong.