Back in Black May of 1992 it was nowhere to be seen as the so-called "mobile mob" took to the streets and toppled the government of General Suchinda Kraprayoon. And yet the Democrats were able to capitalise in the aftermath of the chaotic situation and won the plurality of seats in the elections that followed.

That the Democrat Party had wanted earlier to distance itself from the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) was understandable. Publicly it must show itself to be playing by the rules. Privately, however, it is an undeniable fact that with the Democrats' control of the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration, the PAD has been receiving logistical support it might not have had otherwise.

Be that as it may, with a few days to go before the election, and with hopes of getting the prime minister to resign evaporating into thin air, the necessity for a true and more potent alliance has begun to manifest itself. Now both the Democrat Party and the PAD have adopted the united front of requesting a "royally-bestowed prime minister". From the looks of the prevailing situation, however, this may be too little and too late.

Caretaker Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra knows that he has the upper hand. He is not obliged to listen to the voices calling for his resignation. He does not consider them the voices of "the people". In fact he labelled the protesters gathered in front of Government House a "nightly liar mob" ("One Last Push", The Nation, March 25) and their stage the "liar pavilion". He has shrugged off all suggestions that he resign and request His Majesty the King to appoint a neutral person as interim prime minister to oversee Thailand's political reform. "I am already a royally-bestowed prime minister," he told the sympathetic crowd in Udon Thani on Friday evening.

It would appear at this stage that the strategies of both the Democrat Party and the PAD have not been effective from the beginning. The PAD had banked on the prime minister resigning under intense pressure, then the abolishment of the royal decree ordering the April 2 election, the bestowal of a prime minister by His Majesty the King, and the final "bill checking" on Thaksin and his cohorts, whatever that "bill checking" may be.

The PAD, however, is not going to get what it wants. The prime minister does not have his back to the wall, as many people may have thought. If he has been able to withstand the great pressure being applied on him for more than three weeks, then one week more will not matter that much to him.

Worse still, this so-called "bill checking" obviously has strengthened Thaksin's resolve to go to the wire. He certainly has the resources to do it. After all, he is still the darling of the majority of the people in the countryside. Lest it be forgotten, they are the ones who still constitute the country's backbone today.

On the other hand, the Democrat Party has been wasting too much of the little precious time it has had in telling its supporters why it is not contesting the elections. What it should have done is to tell the people to go to vote, which is the democratic thing to do and even a duty. And it should have told them that they should vote any which way but for Thai Rak Thai. The PAD should have done the same.

Instead of taking to the streets as it did on Saturday, or filing complaints against Thaksin and calling for his arrest as it plans to do today, both of which carry great risk of causing public outrage and confusion or even the kind of confrontation that this country can ill afford, the PAD must now consider educating the public about their political choices while there is still time left. Exposing Thaksin and his regime's misdeeds, even if they are true, has both its merits and limits. Too much of it or more of the same could definitely turn listeners off, signs of which are being to surface.

Thaksin has said that if he does not win 50 per cent of the votes cast in the election or 50 per cent of the eligible voters (which one is still not clear at the moment), he will not assume the premiership. Right there the public has a viable option of unseating him constitutionally. We already know that the new Parliament is unlikely to have a full house after the elections, with Thai Rak Thai and other candidates unlikely to make it in some 30 constituencies. This is not to mention the party-list seats, where one candidate has already opted out.

So where is the need for this "one last push"? Thaksin will not resign; and if he does not, it would be too much of an inappropriate - illegal and perhaps even unconstitutional - request for His Majesty the King to invoke Section 7 of the 1997 Constitution. Our beloved monarch, especially in this most auspicious year, should not have been approached in this way, when there are still other avenues for political differences and incompatibility to be resolved and bridged.

Prachyadavi Tavedikul

Bangkok

---------------------------------------------------

Get rid of corruption along with the prime minister

 As said previously, getting rid of Thaksin and his corrupt cronies is not enough this time around, it must be shown that we have had enough of corruption and fraud by proving the corruption and fraud.

Charges must be preferred and assets must be frozen, locally and offshore. Any financial institution that participated in hiding the assets offshore must be named, no matter how big. Without this, a change of leadership has no meaning, as the next lot will just continue to rip us off.

The fight against corruption must take a different direction this time. It is not that difficult if serious intent to weed out this evil from our society is widespread.

Asset testing is the tool to utilise, as Thaksin knows.

A senior police/customs/land officer or others on Bt50,000 per month cannot afford to drive a Mercedes-Benz and his wife a BMW, own property, have children in school, go gambling abroad twice a year and so on.

If these parties cannot account for their assets, confiscate all their assets and utilise these funds to fight further corruption. Believe me, there would be billions of baht available.

Establish a team of independent, above-reproach investigators to carry out this task and make sure no one is immune, no matter what their status.

This is the way to rid us of the evil of corruption.

I am sure The Nation and other media entities would be glad to assist in fighting corrupt practices and cleaning up our nation once and for all for the benefit of the people of Thailand and our international reputation, which at present leaves a lot to be desired.

This is what Thaksin was supposed to have done; instead he participated in such practices to further enrich his family and friends.

We have a man in Thailand who could tackle this enormous task and is capable of doing so: Seripisut Temiyaves. I do not know if he would accept the job, but it is worth considering.

He is one man I have faith in as he told me once that he loved our nation.

I am a lonely voice but a true Thai who loves his nation and wants to hold his head up with pride.

Noppadon

Bangkok

---------------------------------------------------

Royal intervention would not be a step backward

 I feel compelled to respond to the opinions of Kasian Tejapira and Thongchai Winichakul on the issue of the People's Alliance for Democracy calling for royal intervention to appoint a prime minister in place of Thaksin Shinawatra, especially because they both have experience, insight and knowledge and their opinions carry weight.

Kasian believes that such intervention should only take place if there is a real threat of violence and Thongchai believes that it is anti-democratic and should never happen. However, I believe they are tactically wrong. Here are my reasons.

First, this is a non-violent struggle and it must remain so. This non-violent nature of the struggle is a primary consideration at this stage. With thousands mobilised, and with Thaksin and his coalition intransigent, there is a very serious deadlock. Both Thaksin's coalition and the PAD know that the demonstrations cannot go on forever and violent struggle is not an option. What is the PAD supposed to do, go home? That would be a bigger loss to the tradition of radical democracy, even if it is done slowly.

Second, I believe that the present stage of this struggle can be re-conceptualised as anti-dictatorial rather than pro-democratic. There are many implications of this distinction, among which is the matter of whether the conditions for a pro-democracy struggle exist at present.

Third, while I understand the issue of radicality of constitutional action and people's power as against the conservativism of royalism, we need to see royal intervention as a tactic of "one step backward, two steps forward". We need to see it instrumentally, not just in formalist terms.

However, I believe these "two steps forward" can only be taken if the PAD sets goals beyond the removal of Thaksin, including strengthening the state machinery to make it more resilient against corruption, and prosecuting the corrupt, even retroactively. Another aspect of this state reform can be a greater role and legitimacy for "people's power". This way, royal intervention in this instance will simply be a "technical" means deployed by "the people" to break the deadlock, not the full menu of action.

Fourth, whether we like it or not, royalism is and will continue to be an aspect of Thai political life. Instead of marginalising it, it can be radicalised. Thailand will not have a democracy like western countries in the foreseeable future not only because the structural and institutional conditions are absent, but because Thailand has its own unique political and social history, one in which royalty is an integral part. And of course, even with western style democracy, Paris 1968 can and will still happen again. This fact needs to be structurally and historically factored into both analysis and actions.

With regard to the last two points, I am sure that both Kasian and Thongchai know that royalism was central to the development of the democratic tradition in England. Chartism was eventually forced to compromise with capital and later re-emerged as the British Labour Party. In the 17th, 18th and early 19th centuries, royalism was an integral part of the moral economy of the people's movements. As a political mechanism and symbol, royalism can indeed be reconstituted to support democratic struggles and aspirations.

Of course, at issue is what kind of political imagery and tradition is being constructed in the present struggle and this is what makes debating with Kasian and Thongchai's opinions important. I hope their opinions will be engaged through your paper.

PH Retlaw

Bangkok

Send us your views in an instant E-mail your opinion, with 'Letters to the Editor' in the subject box, to: letters@nationgroup.com