His opponents, whose ranks are swelling by the day, are not rejecting the rules of the game. They are rejecting the one who they believe has used his unprecedented political power to abuse every rule that stood in his way. Thaksin hasn't yet come to realise that the boycott of the snap election is not a rejection of democracy, but rather a reaction to his refusal to accept fundamental democratic values like transparency, honesty and freedom of speech. This is why his determination to hold the April 2 snap election at all costs is anything but an effort to defend democracy.

He knows that his besieged legitimacy will depend on how the public perceives the April 2 poll. He knows that if he is to come back, the election's results will have to have some semblance of legitimacy. This explains his controversial effort to turn the poll into something similar to a presidential election campaign. At the Friday rally, he pledged not to become prime minister again if his ruling Thai Rak Thai Party received fewer votes than the number of abstentions and ballots supporting smaller parties. By daring those who don't like him to mark "abstain" on the ballots, Thaksin apparently wants to give the poll some credibility, without which the results would only prolong his present crisis.

But his "trick" is too easy to see through. Thaksin knows full well that pro-Thai Rak Thai votes will comfortably overwhelm abstentions or votes for the small parties that conspicuously applied to contest the poll in place of the major opposition parties. Despite the fact that there is no way to count how many people boycott the election by deciding not to go to the polling booths, he will surely use the numbers of official "abstentions" as the sole legitimate votes against him, and proclaim they are outnumbered by pro-Thai Rak Thai votes.

It's typical Thaksin: If he is right on paper, everything is right. This mentality is a symptom that has plagued his rule. Throughout his five years in power, the prime minister has failed to recognise the spirit or will of any law as well as the Constitution. To him, what is written is there to evade or exploit, and that is why he is here today, having a taste of his own medicine. While he is branding those planning to boycott the April 2 election as anti-democracy elements, the other side believes that only through the rejection of a "democratically installed ruler" can they free Thailand's democracy from his grip.

This is an intriguing time in Thailand's political evolution. While we cannot say the election boycott is praiseworthy, we may be witnessing a subtle change in the way the fight for democracy is waged. Thaksin has become too powerful to be dealt with through conventional means; the Constitution Court's decision not to scrutinise his connections with Shin Corp was arguably the catalyst for this unorthodox struggle. When existing rules cannot provide justice, people don't bother respecting or preserving them.

The repeated peaceful rallies have also become a phenomenon. The fear remains, though, that the demonstration at Sanam Luang yesterday evening could lead to violence. What is obvious are the efforts by most parties involved to make this one a bloodless political uprising. While the pro-Thaksin view may contribute the rallies' "failure" to Thaksin's strength, it ignores the fact that the protracted nature of the campaign is also due to the prevailing desire of those in the alliance to achieve its goal peacefully.

The snap election, therefore, is significant for a variety of reasons. Obviously, it will be a test of Thaksin's popularity. But how many voters participate, how many of them vote "abstain", and how many decide to stay home, and how the public respond to the outcome will say a lot about the political maturity of Thailand as a whole.