Caretaker Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra has rediscovered the word "reconciliation".

The word reappears whenever he is cornered.

In 2004, Thaksin's leadership was severely tested after a siege and a crowd-control operation turned deadly.

Faced with the furore over the bloodshed at Pattani's Krue Se mosque and at Narathiwat's Tak Bai district, Thaksin suddenly embraced non-violence and formed the National Reconciliation Commission.

Former prime minister Anand Panyarachun was picked to draft reconciliation measures.

Two years have passed. Senseless killings remain a daily occurrence in the deep South. Local residents are still living in fear and security officials have yet to come up with a tangible solution to quell the violence.

The government has shunned Anand's recommendations to forge reconciliation.

The southern unrest was not resolved after Thaksin added the word "reconciliation" to his vocabulary. He managed, however, to divert attention from his failure to restore normalcy in the three southernmost provinces.

In a June 29 statement, Thaksin referred to a charismatic figure overstepping the Constitution to overthrow his government. His ambiguous remarks triggered much speculation about his intentions.

Many pundits suspected he was trying to involve the monarchy or the Privy Council in a power play with his opponents.

Thaksin also drew flak following the discovery that he wrote to foreign leaders, including US President George W Bush, to report about the domestic political situation.

For the past two weeks, his opponents have renewed demands for Thaksin to step aside, insisting he is the cause of the political crisis.

In response, Thaksin has peppered his remarks with calls for his opponents to join him in fence-mending talks.

In his weekly radio address on Saturday, he devoted considerable time to plead for reconciliation, saying he was ready for talks without any preconditions.

He gave follow-up interviews urging his opponents to reason with him in order to put democratic rule back on track with a new election.

His opponents appear to have seen something behind his olive branch, which was offered after remarks that fanned political animosity.

They suspect Thaksin is engaged in another ploy to save his skin. The People's Alliance for Democracy is poised to file a new administrative lawsuit, charging Thaksin and his caretaker government with clinging to power beyond the maximum 60 days prescribed by the Constitution.

If Thaksin is found guilty, he and his government will have to relinquish power without delay.

The Democrat Party has not jumped on to the reconciliation bandwagon, which party members say is merely a bid by Thaksin to buy more time.

The Chat Thai Party has offered to help broker a compromise even though it admits it can detect no genuine attempt by Thaksin to mend fences.

Any leader, including Thaksin, should realise he is at his political twilight when his words no longer carry weight.

Thaksin's opponents see his offer for reconciliation as an empty gesture because he refuses to negotiate two core issues - his re-election bid and the future of the Election Commission.

Thaksin is at the centre of the political crisis. As long as he clings to power, political uncertainty will persist. The embattled leader may muster enough votes to secure an election victory but still lack the credibility to rule.

A government leader derives a mandate from popular vote but must also ensure his leadership is accepted.

An election victory is not a blank cheque to bully opponents but a first step to govern by compromise.

The political crisis will not end if Thaksin continues to trumpet his popular mandate while marginalising his opponents.

His tacit support for the EC is a hindrance to the new election and prolongs the stalemate.

Following the botched vote, the EC has lost its credibility to manage the electoral process, and it urgently needs to be revamped to ensure a free and fair election.

If Thaksin sincerely wants to reconcile with his opponents he should stop using the EC to wage a proxy war with the judiciary in order to retain control over the electoral process.

As someone who often boasts about his popularity, Thaksin should have no qualms about contesting an election under impartial referees.

Avudh Panananda

The Nation