Bhokin Bhalakula, right, Thai Rak Thai deputy leader, outlines a tentative plan to amend the Constitution and make way for political reform at the party’s headquarters yesterday.

A critical juncture has been reached in Thai politics. Opponents of Thai Rak Thai Party leader Thaksin Shinawatra want him out of the game for good, while the outgoing premier is attempting to pull strings within his party to fight back by proxy.

As key party figures have become engrossed in annihilating one another, they have created a climate of despair on an unprecedented scale.

There has been a clear and decided plunge of confidence in both government and opposition parties.

The country's future looks bleak unless the warring sides can find middle ground soon.

The political meltdown has occurred because government politicians have trampled on the rules of politicking and their manoeuvres have clouded the Constitution's ground rules to such an extent that most observers think a re-write is in order.

So the situation seems unlikely to improve until political reforms are completed.

Here is the dilemma: Thaksin's opponents are determined to wipe the slate clean by uprooting his legacy in order to ensure genuine reforms, while the Thai Rak Thai is forging ahead with its road map for rewriting the Charter.

The opposition allies - the Democrat, Chat Thai and Mahachon parties, along with the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) - want to exclude Thaksin or his legacy from the re-writing process.

Election boycotts and civil disobedience have proven effective in taking Thaksin out of the prime minister's post and, encouraged by their initial success, the opposition allies and the PAD are moving ahead in a bid to purge a raft of political ills left behind by Thaksin.

But it seems they are going after him with a vengeance, rather than spelling out what went wrong with politics and then offering a solution.

For the man on the street, it is pointless to complain about Thaksin pulling strings when no alternative is being offered.

In the meantime, Thaksin has managed to become less visible politically in order to allow his Thai Rak Thai to embed itself in Parliament and influence the rewriting of the Charter.

Despite fiery protests against the election's outcome - claims of illegitimacy are rampant - the ruling party appears on course to dictate just what the revised Charter will say.

Should Thai Rak Thai succeed in dominating the political reform process, it would be the ultimate farce - political villains would wind up enjoying their spoils after being caught plundering.

Thai Rak Thai's plan to set up a so-called neutral body to rewrite the Charter is hollow, because precedents show that only a handful of opinion leaders can shape the outcome.

Because Thai Rak Thai, the three opposition allies and the PAD remain divided, they may each devise their own version of the Charter, which could then be taken to a referendum, or vote, on which the electorate preferred.

The warring parties would do well to put aside their vendettas and try and help one another answering four key questions before placing the burden of a future constitution on the shoulders of the public. The 1997 Constitution was designed to safeguard government stability, but architects of the Charter failed to envisage a single-party government.

That leaves unanswered questions.

How should the rules for censure and partisan votes be modified to ensure checks and balances to retain stability?

Charter writers introduced myriad measures to fight vote-buying, but failed to anticipate populist policies as a new form of money politics. But how do you draw a line between a truly public platform and one meant as electoral bribe?

Many independent organisations came into existence to ensure transparency and good governance, but turned into lapdogs. How can partisan domination be pre-empted to prevent the watchdogs kowtowing to the powers that be?

Many draconian laws were enacted to fight graft violations, but there are no provisions to address policy abuse in favour of vested interests. How can those in charge be prosecuted and how can office-holders be held responsible for lopsided policies?

Avudh Panananda

The Nation