Pollwatch, an independent poll-monitoring body, came up with the idea of a debate between Prime Minister Thaksin and opponents campaigning for his ouster. But this idea, no matter how appealing to those eager to see the warring parties thrash out their differences in the open, appeared doomed from the beginning.

Whatever expectations Pollwatch and supporters of this idea had, such a debate could be nothing more than a forum for those with opposing views to state their points. It would certainly make a colourful exercise, especially if the two protagonists, Thaksin and Sondhi Limthongkul, shared the table. But it would be presumptuous to expect anything resembling a breakthrough to come out of it.

The proposed debate would most likely end up being a shouting match that would harden both sides' positions and aggravate the already-volatile situation. All sides would go home even more convinced they were right.

Another forum, proposed by a group representing university rectors nationwide, sounded even less feasible. To avoid an open confrontation before the television cameras, the rectors wanted a closed-door dialogue among all of the parties involved. While striking a responsive chord among Thaksin supporters, it was quickly rejected by the People's Alliance for Democracy which saw it as a trap to weaken the anti-Thaksin movement.

The proponents for dialogue or a debate seem to believe - rather naively - that a compromise can somehow be reached. But under the current political circumstances, a compromise is probably the last thing we need.

In fact, it was Thaksin who effectively closed the door to the possibility of a compromise when he decided to dissolve the House last month and branded those calling for his ouster "hooligans" and "devilish people".

Rejecting all of the grievances against him, Thaksin has gone on the warpath. Ignoring the growing chorus for him to resign, Thaksin has hit the campaign trail and amid the cheerleading at every stop is drifting farther away from political reality.

Apparently still convinced that those who are campaigning for his ouster are just a small bunch of troublemakers, Thaksin is leaning on rural supporters who have benefited from his populist programmes to catapult him back to power through the ballot box.

Of course, Thaksin has made it abundantly clear that he believes the April 2 election will absolve him of all charges levelled against him by his opponents. These range from conflicts of interest to the selling off of national assets through the controversial sale of his family's controlling stake in Shin Corp to Singapore's Temasek Holdings. The 19 million votes that his Thai Rak Thai received in last year's election delivered him an unprecedented political mandate, and Thaksin is expecting nothing short of an encore.

If Thaksin is interested in a dialogue with his critics, as Government Spokesman Surapong Suebwonglee is trying to suggest, his only motive is to buy time to ease off the pressure. For Thaksin, nothing is going to come in the way of the snap election.

But Thaksin might have forgotten one thing. Democracy is more than having elections. There is no doubt that Thaksin and his party will triumph unopposed in the April 2 poll, which is being boycotted by all of the opposition parties. But political legitimacy doesn't always come with the votes.

The snap election may pave the way for Thaksin to regain his mandate but will in no way restore his legitimacy to govern - not when a sizeable number of the population still question his ethics and integrity. Thaksin may take comfort from his grass-roots support, but he should know that if the broad sectors of urban society are strongly opposed to him and ready to continue to challenge him on the streets, his post-election administration would be dysfunctional from day one.

The opposition's boycott of the election aside, the rationale for the poll itself has been a big question mark from the beginning. It is seen as nothing more than a Thaksin subterfuge to evade embarrassing charges resulting from the sale of the Shin shares.

The credibility of the election has been dealt another severe blow by charges that dozens of "nominees" were paid by the Thai Rak Thai Party to run in the poll. Even more alarming is the accusation that some Election Commission officials have colluded with the former ruling party to rig its candidate-registration database, so that the so-called nominee candidates could be registered retroactively to meet the 90-day deadline.

A closer look at Thaksin's ongoing tour of the countryside tells us that the prime minister is doing more than hitting the campaign trail to get people to vote for his Thai Rak Thai Party on April 2. His cheerleading and hate-filled speeches at every stop are not only driving a wedge between rural folk and urban intellectuals, but also setting the stage for possible confrontation between them, in the event he is pressured to relinquish power.

It would be foolish to believe, as some senior Thai Rak Thai figures have quietly suggested to journalists, that Thaksin might consider taking a break from politics after the election. They claim that Thaksin only wants to make a political statement through the ballot box that despite all the discontent displayed by urban folk, most citizens still trust him and want him to remain at the helm.

But everything Thaksin is doing and saying suggests that stepping down or taking a break from politics is the last thing he is prepared to do. Any debate or dialogue is, therefore, at best a waste of time and at worst a diversion from the real issue.

Thaksin has brought the country to the brink of a crisis that cannot be defused with a compromise. Nothing short of his departure - forced or voluntary - can prevent society from sliding into what many fear will be anarchy.

 Thepchai Yong