The anti-Thaksin camp is adamant in its demand for Thaksin to step down unconditionally as caretaker leader, and perhaps to quit politics altogether, to pave the way for constitutional reform to be followed by a free and fair election. They argue that Thaksin has already lost the legitimacy to rule as a democratic leader after ruthlessly distorting, undermining and exploiting the country's political and economic systems to enrich himself and his cronies over the past five years.

The prime minister, after some vacillation, has vowed to stay put and go ahead with the general election, which is basically a one-horse race featuring Thaksin's mighty Thai Rak Thai Party competing against a handful of small obscure parties. As things stand, the ever-defiant prime minister, who by all accounts continues to enjoy enormous popularity among the rural masses, looks set to return to power.

If the election actually takes place, Thaksin will likely be hounded by the same questions of political legitimacy, even if he makes a comeback as a third-term prime minister with absolute control of the House of Representatives due to the opposition's refusal to participate.

As frustrating and infuriating as this stalemate is, it must be made clear to any would-be instigators of violence that whichever side they belong to, they cannot hope to carry the day through the use of force.

With this in mind, it is encouraging to see protest organisers and peaceful demonstrators who have laid siege to Government House since Monday continue to strictly adhere to the self-imposed principle of non-violence. At the same time, credit must also go to the Royal Thai Police, responsible for peacekeeping and security, for their extraordinary restraint and discipline.

Remarkable though it may seem, the peaceful nature of the anti-Thaksin demonstration and the sensible crowd-control tactics employed by police are not a guarantee that violent confrontation will not occur as the political conflict drags on. Protest leaders and Thaksin have a great responsibility on their shoulders to avoid violence and to keep options open for peaceful solutions to political differences, no matter how unlikely they may seem.

Indeed, a number of potential solutions to break the current impasse have emerged that are worth exploring. According to constitutional law experts and political scientists, any attempt at peaceful resolution to this political crisis will inevitably involve some tweaking of the Constitution. It is a matter of how little or how invasive this tinkering should be in regards to the highest law of the land.

Proponents of the more drastic approach call for a very broad interpretation of Article 7, which they argue empowers HM the King to intervene to end the deadlock by appointing a caretaker prime minister to replace Thaksin. The new prime minister would be charged with overseeing proposed constitutional amendments and the general election would be postponed to a later date after the completion of the constitutional reform process.

Another approach requires as much adherence to the current charter as possible, getting the Election Commission to postpone the April 2 election, while Thaksin steps down and the anti-Thaksin movement ends its campaign at the same time to allow a new Senate to be elected on April 19. The newly elected Upper House would appoint an independent body to amend the Constitution just in time before the next general election.

A willingness to think outside the box could prove to be a major asset in these extraordinary circumstances. But it all depends on the willingness of the opposing camps to strike a compromise. The most trying questions deal with what compromises are possible and appropriate. It will have to be decided whether Thaksin will be offered a blanket pardon or be brought to justice for his alleged transgressions against Thailand's democracy and people.