Travelling into town from the airport on the outskirts of Bangkok, the capital of Thailand presents itself as a sprawling mass of the familiar and the unique. Out of tiny sois crammed with markets, eateries and workshops, impressive modern skyscrapers impose themselves unevenly on the skyline. They stand as testament to the boom years of the 1980s when the rush to make the most of cheap land in a growing economy saw Bangkok explode into a sprawling mass of super-highways, financial centres and huge shopping arcades. Contracts and planning permission were won not with thought for the growing city but with bribes and political favours.

This is modern Bangkok, and it is hard to imagine it differently. Scratch the surface however and it becomes clear that below the chaos left in the wake of rapid development lies a city that could have turned out very differently. The canals, now putrid streams of black liquid, were once the lifeblood of the city, and the original building projects took the form of large boulevards and enormous parks arranged around a landscape littered with ancient temples and pagodas.

A short work from Kho San road, the haunt of young travellers to the country, rests the foundations of that imagined city. A roundabout sits at the top of an enormous street linking new Bangkok with the Grand Palace and its past. In the middle of the roundabout there lies the centrepiece, 'Democracy Monument'. There is a McDonalds on the corner, full of tourists getting their fortnightly fix of burgers and fries, in an air-conditioned haven, only metres away from their guest house. Swamped by such imposing icons of Westernization, Thailand has won a PR coup, not only with its visitors, but also with governments and media institutions around the world. Even in the 1970's, when Thai students were being killed by the military government, and Democracy Monument played host to enormous pro-democracy demonstrations, the West remained oblivious. In Vietnam bombs were killing US soldiers in their hundreds; to the outside world Thailand was above all an ally in the war against Communism, and a rock of stability in the region.

In October last year the BBC decided to end over half a century of broadcasts in Thailand, alongside closures in Eastern Europe, in order to refocus its resources on the middle east. Upon news of the closure a small group of listeners began a petition in an attempt to convince BBC officials that the decision was misguided. In a statement given at the time the BBC acknowledged that their presence had 'contributed to the building of freedoms now enjoyed by their citizens.' They claimed however that the services being cut were in regions were the output had 'little local impact'. In response one petitioner said "BBCW does not understand Thai culture. A little response doesn't mean low interest."

At the heart of the petitioner's concerns were fears that by leaving Thailand, the BBC was failing to recognise the extent to which Thailand's media was in the hands of Prime Minister Thaksin Sinawatra. News of the closure had followed a string of what critics described as "intimidating" lawsuits made against media figures by the Prime Minister's administration and the multi-national company Shin Corp, of which Thaksin's family are the majority shareholders. This, coupled with the Prime Minister's refusal to relax Shin Corps' control of much of Thailand's private media, was deeply frustrating for advocates for a free democratic press in the country. Sorn Nagi Kumar, who signed the petition from her home in Washington DC, stated that the "Thai media is controlled by Thaksin's administration and Shin Corp, whose law suits against (the) Thai press and reporters are exposed the world over. We cannot rely on Thai state media to report unfabricated facts. Please spare [the] BBC-Thai Service as a news lifeline for Thai listeners to hear the "TRUTH" outside [of] the "Shin Cave"."

Thaksin Sinawatra came to power in 2001, and has subsequently been likened to ex-Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi. With a personal fortune vested in telecommunications, he was one of Thailand's most successful businessmen, and took on the role of controlling the country in a new and decisive way. He openly said he would manage Thailand like a CEO. Rural communities saw him as a saviour who would lead them out of the hardships of the financial crisis, as he had proved by his election promise to give a million Baht loan to every village district for local small business.

His 'no-nonsense' style, however, has always been a worry to the citizens of Bangkok, where he has remained unpopular. His time as Prime Minister has been littered with controversial law suits, corruption charges, and alleged human rights violations. In 2003, Thaksin's 'war on drugs' resulted in the death of 2000 people at the hands of a police force who have often been regarded as part of the problem rather than the solution. Human Rights Watch identified "beatings, arbitrary arrest and prolonged detention at the hands of Royal Thai Police," as the symptoms of Thaksin's "shoot to kill" policy.

By early this year, criticism of Thaksin had mushroomed into a national outcry over the sale of his family's majority stake in Shin Corp, widely recognised as a national asset, to a Singaporean conglomerate. Hundreds of thousands of Thais took to the streets in massive demonstrations and 24-hour vigils. The silence was broken; cries of outrage at Thaksin's 'corrupt' government were publicly voiced on placards and over loud speakers at rallies as the movement to oust the Prime Minister gained momentum.

In response Thaksin called a snap election to break the stalemate, and end the political crisis. But opposition parties refused to take part-so Thaksin's 'Thai rak Thai' ('Thais love Thais'), won all the votes. The Nation Newspaper, in the wake of the election, pointed out that the number of protest 'no' votes (approximately half of all ballots cast) was "a resounding rejection of Thaksin's latest ballot-box democracy trick". The Prime Minister disagreed: saw only a resounding victory and reaffirmation of his legitimacy to rule. It was only on his return from a meeting with the king that Thaksin changed his mind and decided to step down. For many Thais the conclusion was obvious, and the king once again received credit for ending a burgeoning crisis. The fact that he felt the need to do so, however, speaks for how serious the situation is. The last time the king intervened in government affairs was after military guns opened fire on demonstrators at Democracy Monument in 1992. It was this intervention that ushered in Thailand's longest period of democratically elected government.

There is no doubt, though, that Thailand's political future remains in the balance, and Bangkok sits on the precipice a second political crisis. While half of Thailand voted against him, half voted for him, and Thaksin is still able to rely on support from rural provinces. When asked about the mood in the country one resident of Bangkok, who did not wish to be named, replied that "it is so stressed because he [Thaksin] hasn't actually left, he is just letting the other to do it, stopping for now, he will continue in future!" When asked what would have happened if the king hadn't intervened she said, "this country may be in a serious problem. People would make 2 groups and then… they kill each other".

For Noi Thammasathien, who worked for the BBC Thai service up to its final broadcast, the situation is unprecedented. Thaksin's Thai rak Thai party remains completely entrenched. But those against him are powerful and organised, and they want him out at all costs. Noi is keen to stress the extent with which this is hurting Thai society.

"Thaksin is the most powerful elected Prime Minister in Thai history, to aim to remove him at any cost puts us in a unique position. This has divided the country down the middle, families are quarrelling, some have stopped talking."

The decision to cut the BBC service at such a pivotal point in Thailand's political development has angered many. Labour MP John Grogan has argued that the pullout has meant "there is no reporting on the BBC Thai service about possibly the most momentous political events in Thailand since 1992."

The problem is that however febrile the situation is, interest outside of the country is lacking. Talking to Thai students in the UK, Noi has found them baffled at the lack of coverage in all British media. In answering their concerns Noi suggests that it is not so much a lack of interest in Thailand, but rather an over-emphasis on the Middle East and China, where events appear to be far more dynamic and reportable.

"It is difficult to tell the world how serious this situation [in Thailand] is, especially when nobody dies. On the outside everything looks like it is going to be ok, but underneath it is bubbling, and people are unsure how the crisis will end."

Democracy Monument and the surrounding area was constructed in the 1930's by a government set upon image and progress in its most western sense. Civil servants were to wear hats, and everybody was to use a spoon and fork to eat with. The legacy of that era was not democracy, but it was enough to convince outsiders that democracy was inevitable. What the outcome of the current stand-off will be no one can predict; what seems certain, however, is that Thailand is on its own.