The snap election announced by Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra on Friday doesn't seem to be the long-lasting solution to the political situation at this crucial juncture.

First, political opponents in recent anti-government rallies have concluded that it is the premier himself who no longer has the legitimacy to govern due to his inability to separate the affairs of state from his family's business dealings - as exemplified by the Bt73-billion tax-free sale of Shin Corp to Temasek Group of Singapore.

By dissolving the House of Representatives, the premier has not addressed this legitimacy issue as called for by his political opponents. Given that, the House dissolution will only buy more time, seeing as he will likely return to office following the snap election even though Thai Rak Thai Party's majority in the 500-seat House will likely shrink from its current 375 seats.

In this scenario, political foes will also likely return to the streets, Royal Plaza or Sanam Luang soon, thus destabilising the next government as well as the country's economy.

Second, political opponents in recent anti-government demonstrations have concluded that Thailand urgently needs a fresh round of political reform.

Hence, the Constitution needs to be amended to ensure that the parliamentary checks-and-balances mechanisms really work for the public good.

When this charter was authored and promulgated in 1997, one of the intentions behind it was to promote a strong government.

Yet, charter drafters did not foresee a scenario in which the government might become too strong and have the ability to exercise its enormous political clout to weaken built-in mechanisms to counterbalance the government's power.

For instance, political analysts, impartial senators and citizens in the know realise now that nearly all independent bodies set up under the 1997 Constitution are currently crippled and cannot function independently as effective checks on the executive.

According to several senators, only 70 to 80 members of the 200-strong Senate are believed to be independent of the government.

As a result, the final Senate confirmation of appointees to various independent bodies in the past few years could have been influenced by the majority votes of "partial" senators.

As for the House of Representatives, political pundits have concluded that the 1997 Constitution is flawed in the sense that it bars MPs from being rebels within their own political parties, thus giving excessive powers to the party's leading figures. Currently all MP applicants are required to be members of a political party for at least 90 days before the general election.

As a result, no government MPs, however unhappy with their leadership, can switch camps because they would lose their eligibility to stand in the next election.

Again, this watertight rule was originally intended to promote a strong and stable government, because Thailand had previously faced frequent political upheavals due to MPs switching camps for their own political benefit. This rule was also aimed at promoting a single-party administration by favouring a system of only two or three large political parties.

However, as it turned out, these and other constitutional rules have been cleverly used by TRT over the past five years to corner enormous power, to the extent that the principle of checks and balances no longer applies.

Overall, the new round of political reforms needs to address these and other key issues by plugging the existing loopholes in the Constitution. The task of amending the highest law in the land will be monumental.

And a snap election that is likely to return Prime Minister Thaksin to office is unlikely to serve this political-reform objective.

 Nophakhun Limsamarnphun

 nop1122@yahoo.com