Democracy's future uncertain unless the middle-class and the rural poor abandon their self-centred view of politics.

The military-initiated constitution, passed by the military-appointed National Legislative Assembly and approved by the people in Sunday's referendum will come into force as soon as His Majesty the King signs his endorsement. The Council for National Security (CNS) and the urban middle-class have won the day after about 57 per cent of those who cast ballots in the referendum voted "yes", defeating the 41 per cent who voted to oppose the charter.

The victory for the "yes" side was much narrower than expected. The country can now look forward to a general election being held some time in December of this year, which will lead to the hand-over of power by the military junta to a democratically elected civilian government early next year. It is hoped that the transition from military to civilian rule will be smooth and lead to the full restoration of democracy in this country.

Much has been said of how the referendum outcome reflects the deep division between the urban middle class championed by the military, and the rural masses, which by all appearances remain loyal to former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra. On one level, such an observation is a fairly accurate characterisation of the situation, which attributes the root cause of the ongoing conflict mainly to a struggle between good and evil.

The CNS, the military-installed Surayud government and the economically better off urban middle-class like to explain the polarisation of politics as the handiwork of one person, Thaksin, who they portray as a cunning and corrupt politician who really knows how to manipulate impoverished, gullible rural folk. The assumption is that the rural poor don't know any better than to trust a politician like Thaksin, who expertly dispensed his powers of patronage to keep them in his thrall.

But this is too simplistic. If one were to assume that the better educated, more politically aware middle-class knew better and were therefore beyond manipulation, one could not be more wrong. The military junta is more or less manipulating the urban middle-class in the same way Thaksin has been manipulating the rural masses.

The urban middle-class would like to think that the difference is that they can also manipulate the military to their advantage, however the same is true for the rural masses, who also think they can manipulate Thaksin to their advantage.

If the rural masses can be accused of turning a blind eye to corrupt acts committed by Thaksin, the urban middle-class can also be faulted for looking the other way when the military has engaged in less than honourable actions that fell far short of good governance standards since it came to power almost one year ago.

In this light, it turns out that there is essentially no difference in the way the urban middle-class and the rural masses take advantage of situations for their own gain. Even in the lead-up to the charter referendum, the urban middle-class did not object to the military's use of state apparatus, including Army personnel, to intimidate or coerce the rural masses, particularly in areas known to be strongholds of Thaksin loyalists.

The rural masses, meanwhile, appeared to see little wrong with the widespread use of bribery or misinformation to persuade people to vote "no".

Such cynicism and hypocrisy from both the urban middle-class and the rural masses are the reason why Thailand's democracy has failed to take root and thrive 75 years after parliamentary democracy under constitutional monarchy was introduced. It is not enough to say that the rural masses should free themselves from the ignominy of servitude under the patronage system. The middle-class must also be told not to rely too much on certain social institutions to guarantee their dominance in the political scheme of things, which is changing fast.

As part of an aspiring democratic society in Thailand, the urban middle-class, the rural masses and all socio-economic groups in between must once and for all shed this political charade and learn to live a more principled democratic life. Only then, can the country be expected to achieve real progress in the development of genuine democracy.