Thaksin pointed an accusing finger at every imaginable political foe. Any and everyone opposing him or questioning his leadership were lumped together as "troublemakers" or "lawbreakers" bent on overthrowing his government.

On the surface, "returning power to the people" - as Thaksin tried to describe his decision to dissolve the House - sounds perfectly fair. After all, in a democracy, calling a snap election is the constitutional prerogative of an incumbent. But political traditions require that such power be exercised only in the event of a serious political confrontation between the executive and the legislative branches or when the legislative branch becomes non-functional.

Thaksin's Thai Rak Thai Party has absolute control of the House to the point of being labelled a "parliamentary dictatorship", and Thaksin has been able to execute his policies practically unhindered.

The legislative branch, therefore, is in no way at fault for the fast-snowballing discontent directed at the executive branch, particularly at the prime minister.

It is Thaksin - and certainly not MPs in the House - who stands accused of conflicts of interest and abusing political power. And it is Thaksin and his family - and certainly not members of the legislative branch - who stand accused of betraying the public trust by selling off their stakes in Shin Corp to Singapore's Temasek Holdings and exploiting legal loopholes to avoid paying tax on their Bt73.3-billion windfall.

Thaksin's political manoeuvring is nothing more than an attempt to whitewash his tainted political leadership. By going to the polls, Thaksin apparently believes he can avoid answering all of the embarrassing questions about morality and conflicts of interest stemming from his family's sale of the stake in Shin Corp to Temasek of Singapore.

From a purely political point of view, this is without a doubt a shrewd move. In one stroke, Thaksin turned the tables on his critics and at the same time paved the way for him to reclaim political legitimacy through the ballot box. Thai Rak Thai has all of the advantages of any incumbency and an unrivalled war chest. Thaksin is also obviously confident that his popularity and the appeal of his populist policies will ensure his return to power will be smooth sailing.

The abrupt dissolution of the House and the limited time frame given to political parties to prepare for the election has already raised questions of fairness - in regard to not only non-Thai Rak Thai politicians, but also the voters themselves.

The Election Committee didn't even bother to try to maintain a semblance of independence when it quickly consented to a government request that the snap election be held 37 days after the House dissolution. That's barely enough time for political parties - except Thai Rak Thai, of course - to prepare.

By dissolving the House, Thaksin has also ensured that choices will be limited to existing political parties. Any alternatives for voters are practically ruled out.

The April 2 election will essentially be less a democratic process to elect a government than a referendum on Thaksin. It will be Thailand's first general election in which policies and political platforms are irrelevant.

But Thaksin is dead wrong to believe that once given a new mandate, popular challenges to his legitimacy to rule will die down. Thaksin has all along underestimated the level of discontent that has spread among all sections of society.

Even if Thaksin is swept back into power, there will still be a big question mark hanging over his legitimacy to govern, as long as the grievances against him are not addressed. The peaceful protests by more than 100,000 at Sanam Luang and tens of thousands more at anti-Thaksin rallies around the country on Sunday should serve as a reminder to the PM that he will be ruling a deeply divided country.

The proposal by the three main opposition parties for Thaksin to sign a commitment to amend the Constitution after the election may provide a way out of the current political deadlock and ensure the country will not be further polarised. But the chances that Thaksin will buy the idea are very slim, given that he is more than assured of re-election without having to compromise. Probably he will simply offer lip service in hopes of pacifying his critics before the election.

In trying to justify the House dissolution, Thaksin in his televised speech invoked the image of the bloody street demonstrations during the May 1992 uprising. But he deliberately chose to twist that historic political event, in order to raise the spectre of violence at Sunday's Sanam Luang rally.

The peaceful manner in which the demonstration proceeded more than disputed Thaksin's claim that he needed to dissolve the House to prevent potential bloodshed. He cited alleged intelligence reports that certain groups of people would try to incite violence similar to that of Black May.

The event, despite Thaksin's dire predictions, passed without a drop of blood being shed. But if Thaksin continues to allow the arrogance of power to blind him to rising discontent among the people, his purported fears of another May uprising may turn out to be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Thepchai Yong