Thaksin has made it crystal clear that he wants to contest the new election regardless of consequences. His opponents want him to be immediately banished from politics, and for good. The hue and cry will soar and tensions rise as relevant parties brace for the judgement days.

Whether the crisis can be brought closer to an end hinges on the outcome of two key cases, one faced by the Election Commission (EC) and the other involving the electoral-fraud charges that could lead to dissolution of the Thai Rak Thai Party and rival Democrat Party.

The criminal malfeasance case against the EC is expected see a verdict by July 25 and will have a direct bearing on the new election as well as Thaksin's fate and that of his Thai Rak Thai Party.

After the judicial decision to nullify the April 2 general election, the leaders of three top courts called for the EC to step aside, paving the way for its revamp to restore the credibility of the electoral process. For almost three months, the election commissioners have been baulked at demands for their resignation. Political analysts see this stubbornness as a proxy war in which government politicians are trying to prop up the EC to influence the new election, or to obstruct those campaigning for the Thai Rak Thai's dissolution over electoral misconduct.

As social pressure has failed to convince the EC that it is no longer fit to serve, the Criminal Court is poised to rule on its alleged dereliction of duty relating to a decision to allow the registration of additional candidates for the April 23 repeat vote. Based on judicial precedents, the EC is facing an uphill battle to secure an acquittal. The Supreme Court had already ruled in a previous case that it was illegal to allow defeated candidates from the first round of balloting to contest the repeat vote as additional candidates. Although the EC contends that it came to its decision before the Supreme Court imposed the ban on additional candidates, many legal pundits say evidence showed that the EC might not have been as innocent as it claimed when forming its decision. The fact of the matter is that the presence of additional candidates helped the ruling party overcome the rule for a minimum of 20-per-cent support from eligible voters in order to declare victory in an unopposed race.

If the EC is allowed to cling to office, then the political playing field will remain skewed in favour of government politicians. The new election will be doomed to failure even before it begins. Should the EC be penalised for malfeasance, the government and its supporters would have to make a difficult decision: whether to cut their losses or to continue backing it for an appellate review.

The departure of the EC would level the playing field and the new election is expected to open a new political chapter. This can happen only if government politicians agree to accept a dent in their domination. But if Thaksin decides to back the EC to the bitter end, the crisis will likely drag on with no end in sight. If he opts to sacrifice the EC, he might face a whole new game under the new watchdog. His popularity might ensure his re-election but it might not be enough to secure a stable future in the next government.

As for the second court battle, on party dissolution, the judicial review may take time. Both parties face possible disbanding, which makes it all the more uncertain whether the Constitution Court will reach a verdict before or after the new election. If the ruling comes after, then Thaksin alone might bear the brunt if it is unfavourable to his party. He could face immense pressure to bear responsibility for the electoral fraud, while his allies could find a new political home and move on. Similarly, should the high court form a verdict before the poll, he might face a severe judicial reprimand that would curtail his aspiration to form the next government.

Another crunch time looms. But sooner or later the political storms must pass and democracy get back on track and move on - with or without the man who claims to be protecting it but who is accused by opponents of derailing the system in the first place through greed and lust for absolute control.