Thailand’s Constitutional Court just ousted it’s Prime Minister, Yingluck Shinawatra, for transferring the national security chief, Thawil Pliensri, on September 7, 2011. The court saw this political move as “an abuse of power.” The back story is here. This quote sums up the actual political move:

Thawil was replaced by Pol General Wichean Potephosree, who was subsequently replaced by Lt-General Paradorn Pattanathabutr last October.

Thawil was removed apparently as the Yingluck government wanted to promote Pol General Priewphan Damapong as National Police chief. At that time, Wichean was the police chief and he vowed not to let go of that position unless he was made the NSC chief.

Whether this was “an abuse of power” or not will be debated for some time. What is clear, nevertheless, is that the recent unrest in Thailand—where a group of mainly urban middle class citizens have now successfully ousted an elected Prime Minister whose political base was comprised primarily of rural poor citizens—is pushing the international community’s conception of democracy. Joshua Kurlantzick connects the unrest in Thailand to that found in Turkey, Ukraine, Thailand, Venezuela, Malaysia, and Cambodia. He says that this global unrest is a “middle class revolt“:

While relatively free and fair polls put these leaders into office, in office these leaders have gerrymandered political systems, used money to buy votes, crushed media outlets and civil society, and generally acted like elected autocrats.

But leaders such as Thailand’s Yingluck Shinawatra or Ukraine’s Viktor Yanukoych have also built broad enough bases among the poor, using populist rhetoric and policies to cut poverty to win elections. The willingness of demonstrators in some of these nations (though not all) to bypass democratic politics for street justice has further undermined democracy and added fuel to violent crises.

Indeed, the People’s Democratic Reform Committee, the group leading the protests in Thailand, are calling on the government to install a “reform council overseen by a leader of their choice“—in effect, an unelected council.

The lesson so far from Thailand is the rise of the middle class does not necessarily mean a move towards democracy. Other issues remain to be seen. For instance, will Yingluck’s transition out of power be peaceful? Kurlantzick’s believes we’ll see more violence, and indeed protests by the rural poor are already being organised. Moreover, what do these events mean for the typical understanding of middle class political power as being historically peaceful? And beyond Thailand, what lessons can Cambodia draw from the recent events, especially considering its growing number of protests?