A likely scenario is that the news of a possible boycott could galvanise the already angry middle class - frustrated by Thaksin's perceived moral bankruptcy as a democratic leader and his underhanded scheme to bankroll his way back to power for another term - to swell the ranks of anti-Thaksin protesters at Sanam Luang this evening.

To a certain extent, a decision by the Democrat Party and its allies to stay out of the scheduled general election would be understandable. The election is widely seen as a set-up that would enable Thaksin to whitewash his tainted leadership and the plethora of corruption scandals involving his family and friends.

With money politics continuing to be the name of the game, the table is tilted heavily in favour of Thaksin's Thai Rak Thai Party, which possesses an unparalleled electoral war chest. The widely held perception that the Election Commission cannot be relied on to ensure free and fair elections must also be one of the determining factors.

An election boycott would be expected to exacerbate the dangerous trend polarising Thai politics that Thaksin has started. It would also make it virtually impossible for the deepening conflict between the anti-Thaksin camp and Thaksin's many supporters to be resolved peacefully. The opposition parties can perhaps be faulted for abandoning the parliamentary process during this political crisis. With a boycott, the opposition would be saying extraordinary political circumstances require extraordinary political measures.

If they do indeed declare a boycott, let us hope that they are right.

It is only fair to say that Thaksin must share the blame if this unprecedented extra-parliamentary political showdown takes place.

Thaksin must have thought that he had it all figured out when he took the calculated risk of dissolving the House of Representatives to pave the way for a snap election. He fully expected that he and his ruling Thai Rak Thai Party would be returned to power again with an ample parliamentary majority.

He may well be right given the broad-based popularity that he continues to enjoy among the uncritical, politically apathetic masses, who have acquired a taste for instant gratification thanks to the Thai Rak Thai Party's populist policies.

But Thaksin could not be more wrong if he thinks that scoring another major victory at the polls will absolve his many transgressions against the nation's democracy committed during the previous five years, or help him regain his legitimacy to rule. Yet that appears to be what the incumbent prime minister is thinking.

With Thaksin's winner-take-all approach to democracy, political power is not so much different from a monopolistic concession of, say, a mobile-telephone service, which is awarded to the highest bidder. It follows that political power, once achieved by hook or by crook, allows him to run the country as he pleases. To make sure that his blatant abuse of power proceeded unencumbered by the inconvenience of scrutiny by various constitutionally mandated watchdog organisations, Thaksin set out to undermine and weaken them.

The prime minister's heavy-handed manipulation of these watchdogs rendered them ineffective as checks and balances against the possibility of the government wielding too much power. This disruption of the balance of power has also a corroding effect on the rule of law, made worse by Thaksin's aggressive campaign to roll back civil liberties, including the rights to freedom of expression and of the press.

There is a better alternative to boycotting the election: an impartial caretaker government that could first implement political reforms through constitutional amendments with broad-based participation by the public. Then we could proceed to free and fair elections.