Voters in the capital have spoken once again of their growing disapproval of one-party domination. Thaksin Shinawatra's staunch defender, former city governor Samak Sundaravej, was almost humiliated in the polls, though he still managed to come second in a senatorial race in Bangkok.

Maybe the vote was more about clamouring for a revival of checks and balances than about the caretaker prime minister personally. But then again, how can we differentiate between him and the state of the country's political system? In a screaming headline, Matichon interpreted the poll results as a confirmed "No to Thaksin!"

The provinces, meanwhile, elected those with either obvious or indirect ties to political parties to the upper chamber, which is supposed to be neutral and independent. It was a message as resounding as the one from Bangkok. The North and Northeast say they still support Thai Rak Thai and firmly believe in Thaksin. The South, as expected, still displays unwavering faith in the Democrats.

Whereas the vote reflects the national divide, in practice it has messed up our parliamentary system. The Senate, a supposed lynchpin of checks and balances, will remain anything but. The Upper House will still be a nasty field for dirty political games and manoeuvrings. Whatever it does, it will still be accused of being "enslaved" by political parties, justifiably or not.

Given the choices presented to the voters, they can't be blamed for turning Parliament into "two chambers of husbands and wives". Political parties' involvement in the election discouraged independents, especially upcountry, allowing relatives, canvassers and aides of politicians to practically compete among themselves. Bangkok may have been the exception, but capitol voters' desire to inject a semblance of checks and balances into the Thai Parliament has virtually been overwhelmed by the fact that as many as 125 new senators are known or alleged to have close connections with Thai Rak Thai.

And the first acid test couldn't come any sooner. The Senate will have to elect its speaker, an event that promises to be quite a show. Already, Samak's name has been floated, despite of his zealous pro-Thaksin stance, while "the other side" is promoting anti-Thaksin campaigner Klanarong Chantik as a potential challenger. Samak's rise to the post is very likely but it will raise a lot of questions that could undermine the new Senate's image and credibility from day one. This may sound premature, but the possibility of the new Senate launching an impeachment campaign against Thai Rak Thai leaders is pretty slim.

The worst part, though, is that those opposing Samak's possible election as Senate speaker will risk being labelled "undemocratic" again. The same old argument will be invoked: senators who elect him have been elected by the people, so what's wrong with that? The critics are in a situation of double jeopardy: you have turned down the results of the April 2 general election and now you are aiming to discredit the Senate poll as well?

In Thai politics today, ethics matter less and less, and the requirement for the "highest standards" is often applied to anyone else but politicians in power. It's ironic that efforts to establish and promote a fairer, more transparent and more credible political system often runs the risk of being lambasted as undemocratic. Granted, some measures applied or proposed are controversial, but what has brought us to this point is that the powers that be lack respect for democracy and its essential principles in the first place.