Antidemocratic forces in fragile democracies

Not every antidemocratic party in a democracy is fascist, or even highly ideological. How do we know which is which?

Consider politics in Thailand. (The following is a simplified version). Thai politics has been dominated in the past decade by Thaksin Shinawatra, a populist who was elected in 2001 and re-elected with huge majorities in 2005 of mostly rural Thais. He was a figure similar to Hugo Chavez: not concerned with constitutional niceties or checks and balances but hugely popular among the rural poor. But the middle classes and many urban sectors of the population hated him, and eventually he was overthrown by the army in September 2006, after massive protests. The coup was widely supported in urban areas. (A good, more scholarly primer on the contemporary politics of Thailand is found here; Wikipedia's articles can be comically biased sometimes, but they are easy to link to point to some basic factual information).

The army eventually allowed new democratic elections in December 2007, at which point Thaksin's allies proceeded to get re-elected, minus Thaksin (who was, I believe, disqualified from ruling by well-substantiated corruption allegations). But the middle classes and urban sectors of the population still hated him, and they mounted a long campaign of protests, long-term sit-ins in government buildings and other government institutions, and court cases that eventually succeeded in driving the government from power. Though they called themselves the "People's Alliance for Democracy" and charged the government, very plausibly, with corruption, the protesters rather preferred a less democratic Thailand. They argued that rural voters were "ignorant" and that Thai society was traditionally hierarchical and should remain so. They wanted to replace an elected parliament with one that was mostly appointed and to increase the importance of the monarchy and the royalist elite. Yet they commanded substantial popular support. Does this suggest that culture matters?.

Now that they are in power, they face the same sort of opposition from the other side: huge protests from Thaksin supporters, sit-ins in government buildings, and so on. Thai society is now highly polarized, and the new government may eventually be driven from power by Thaksin supporters.

What are the differences/similarities with the situations that enabled fascist parties to gain power? What does the situation in Thailand say about the importance or unimportance of "culture" for the stability of democratic institutions? The poor voters seem to rather like democracy insofar as it allows them to elect Thaksin, who was not a model democrat; many in the urban middle classes and the elite dislike it and prefer a non-democratic system, arguing that it is more consonant with Thai values (at least in their interpretation of these values). Few are willing to take a stand for liberal democracy on principle. But is this a matter of culture? Is there a happy ending to this story?

What other cases can you think of where more or less democratic regimes face large and well-supported antidemocratic forces, on any side of the political spectrum?

(cross-posted)