Despite being a democratic means of expression, street gatherings can also be used to achieve undemocratic goals, scholars have warned as Thailand sees a surge in political protests.
Mobilising crowds to press for action is common all over the world, said Janjira Sombatpoonsiri, a political science lecturer at Thammasat University. Such tactics are used by governments, ideological groups, armed groups, and normal non-government organisations as well as environmental and or anti-globalisation activists.
Though protests or street gatherings are democratic platforms, the content or substance of the demonstrations is not always constructive and beneficial to the public interest, said Ms Janjira.
"(Street mobs) can bring democracy downhill. Protests can be destructive and violent as we can see [examples] around the globe as well as here," the peace and conflict scholar said on Friday at a seminar at Chulalongkorn University.
"Authorities in Europe have to be well-equipped to deal with violent neo-Nazi vigilantes, for example; they simply could not stay cool."
Bangkok is preparing to witness large pro- and anti-government protests again on Sunday, and some people fear a violent confrontation, despite pledges by leaders that the groups would not provoke each other.
In assessing Thailand's protests, Ms Janjira said the public needed to consider the "anatomy" of the rally organisers and the authorities dealing with them.
Huge street gatherings in 2010 and this year have aimed to topple the government, but the types of authorities used to deal with rallies have been different, she noted.
"The military was expedited to disperse the crowd three years ago while now the riot police are doing their duty. This, hopefully, will bring in different results with no or less violence," she said.
Ukrist Pathmanand, director of the East Asian Studies Institute at Chulalongkorn University, said he remained positive that street gatherings would not lead to violence.
It was just a new feature of Thai political conflicts, in which political rivalries involved the masses, whether rural or middle class, as pressure groups, said Mr Ukrist.
Elsewhere, political rivalries were also grave and other institutions such as the media and military drawn into the debate, said Mr Ukrist.
Ms Janjira agreed that Thailand's media had also played an explicit role in mobilising crowds for factions supported by certain outlets, or deterring crowds from joining their opponents.
She suggested that protest organisers consider different approaches such as making events more like festivals or carnivals instead of inciting anger or hatred against others.
"Elsewhere [some groups] seem successful in applying humour instead of hate speech to achieve political purposes," she said.
"Non-violent disobedience such as peaceful strikes, or wearing signs or symbols to protest for a long time have also brought about the same or more powerful impacts than street gatherings."
She expressed scepticism about the ability of Suthep Thaugsuban, a veteran politician who resigned from the Democrat Party to lead the Rajadamnoen rallies, to lead a civil disobedience campaign.
"Some have wondered what they are going to do with the million people on the streets," she said, referring to Mr Suthep's pledge to draw a million people on Sunday.
"Civil disobedience works if they involve and engage with grassroots or community people for some time."
Strategic planning and working toward minimising casualties were needed if people wanted to be real peace activists, she said.
But as the political situation remained fluid, she was not sure if protests could be stirred up again by the ruling party's move to carry on with charter changes in defiance of the Constitution Court.
"We just have to believe that groups led by a political party should avoid incurring violence as much as possible," she said.