The following appeared in a New York Times editorial:
These are dark days in Thailand, where an election was disrupted by protesters whose demands for a suspension of democracy could lead to greater chaos. The country's constitutional monarchy has faced coups and street protests, but it has been a model of relative stability and development in Southeast Asia. As an American treaty ally, Thailand has been important in helping to reduce regional tensions and provide balance to the growing military assertiveness of China by championing trade and economic integration.
Because Thailand's Constitution requires 95 percent of parliamentary seats be filled before a new government can be formed, the disruption means the country will remain in a limbo until elections are held in those districts where protesters prevented a vote.
The protests are being led by opposition politicians who represent the urban elite and people from the south of the country. They refused to participate in the election knowing they would surely lose to the Pheu Thai Party of Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra, which enjoys the support of the rural majority in the north and northeast.
The opposition leaders want to oust Shinawatra and replace Parliament with an unelected people's council to carry out unspecified political reforms.
Protest leaders, who include former leaders of the opposition Democrat Party, say the changes they propose will cleanse Thai politics of corruption, but they themselves have been accused of serious corruption.
The country's deep divisions could be made worse and the continuing political strife could further undermine Thailand's already shaky economy. The military and King Bhumibol Adulyadej have refused to support either side.
If the opposition cares about reducing corruption and strengthening the democracy, it should end the protests and propose clear and detailed reforms that voters can accept or reject.