In an exclusive interview with The Nation last week, Abhisit vowed to present himself as an alternative, a person who can bring back national harmony. The paradox is that it is almost impossible to compete with, let alone defeat, Thaksin without invariably widening the great national divide, unprecedented in modern Thai political history.

To begin with, Abhisit's party boycotted the April 2 election, effecting a months-long impasse that still leaves Thailand without a legitimate government and legislature. Many people agree with Abhisit that the boycott was warranted as it was the only possible way to neutralise the "Thaksin system", which was widely believed to be getting too powerful and corrupt. Although Abhisit has admitted his party's decision left him with a big scar, he is adamant that he could not "think of any other way" to keep the alarming "Thaksin threat" to Thai democracy in check.

The problem is, while one half of Thailand understands the painful rationale for the boycott, the other half doesn't and most likely never will. Abhisit can try to sway some of those in the other half during the next couple of months, but how can he do it without reopening old wounds?

A glance at Abhisit's campaign theme and national harmony seems even more elusive. He has no choice but to launch ferocious assaults on Thaksin's essence.

The issue of conflicts of interests will have to be repeated a hundred times a day. The economic "success" over the past few years must be painted as a big exaggeration.

And, more crucially, Abhisit is set to tell voters the widely-supported medical welfare and other "populist" policies are unsustainable, and that preaching and investing in a "sufficiency economy" is better than Thaksin's Santa Claus approach.

The next election campaign will be nothing but a new war. Thaksin, if he makes up his mind to fight for an immediate return to power, will throw everything at his opponents, and he is very well equipped to do so financially.

The one and only election issue will be the very same one that has brought our country to this highly critical point: Is Thaksin good or bad for Thailand? And both sides will go for the jugular in trying to prove their points.

Abhisit, who will be the flag-bearer of the "No to Thaksin" camp, has complained that his party never had a real chance to fight Thaksin in a fair political atmosphere. He is right. The "Thaksin system" required total domination and blocking of all channels of scrutiny and counterbalance. This near-absolute control has loosened a bit, but Abhisit will have to race against time.

Abhisit's dilemma represents the country's. The "Thaksin system" is such that to emerge as an alternative warrants an all-out war, and that war has to go all the way because the system has so much at stake. It's another soul-searching time, and perhaps thinking too much of "national harmony" could blur the real issue.

Over the next two and a half months Thailand needs to explore, debate and scrutinise the good and bad of Thaksin until there is nothing left to ponder.

As Abhisit rightly points out, national harmony can never be achieved with a leader who always has to think of his own massive vested interests before those of the country. But the simplicity ends there. How a country deeply divided by such a leader can achieve reconciliation is an immense and complex issue.