Each party, be it pro- or anti-Thaksin, has by now developed a ready justification for its stance. Very rare are people who may have changed their stance towards Thaksin, who is himself a politically polarising figure.

Those who oppose Thaksin charge that the man is arguably one of the most questionable and shameless politicians in Thai history, with unusually high ambitions. To them, Thaksin is a self-serving dictator, a master of political manipulation. This group can readily cite many now well-known examples to support their stance.

On the other hand, rural poor such as those in the northeastern province of Roi Et, regard Thaksin as their benign saviour. For them, he is the only Thai prime minister who pays any attention to their daily hardships and helps alleviate their problems through populist policies such as the Bt30 universal healthcare project, debt moratorium or ready access to cheap loans.

When asked about Thaksin's alleged questionable dealings and abuse of power, his supporters simply discount the issues as either too far removed from their daily lives or argue that most Thai politicians in the past were similarly corrupt.

One Roi Et native told this writer that "people who work hard must eat", in reference to how tolerant they are towards corruption. Others said those who oppose Thaksin must be rich people who have an economic and political conflict with the caretaker prime minister.

The rural poor are looked down upon as naive, short-sighted people due to their immediate concerns with populist handouts, dependency and lack of any moral concerns by many urban people who distrust and oppose Thaksin. It's not these differences alone that are feeding into the present political climate. But the fact is, both camps seem to fail to grasp the other's point of view and make any meaningful engagement, opting simply to perpetuate caricatures of each other.

It's as if their positions have become rigid, written in stone, and that they have become utterly incapable of learning anything new over the past six months of political turmoil. Did any social learning take place over the past six months? Everyone, no matter which side one belongs to, should ask themselves what lessons have they learnt.

How long and what will it take before the well-educated and better-off Thais who oppose Thaksin will try to understand that the vast majority of rural poor do perhaps have different priorities when it comes to whom they want to vote into both houses of Parliament.

Thaksin may pose a new kind of threat to the young and fragile Thai democratic tradition. However, citizens have to learn to deal with him and oppose him and his Thai Rak Thai Party in a more innovative way that is not detrimental to participatory democracy and people's self-reliance in the long run.

They will also have to try to achieve that while not losing sight of the other Thailand, mostly rural Thais who are big fans of Thaksin, and take account of them when coming up with any future solutions.

How can different groups in society cohabit if they cannot or are unwilling to listen to the other side of the debate and be empathetic about what "the others" think and why they think the way they do?

Unfortunately, the current failure to take "the others" into consideration is just a testament of the great and grave socio-economic and political divide between the haves and have-nots, between those with better opportunities and those with little or none.

It's also a reflection of the divide between those with greater access to independent information and those with no such access, depending mostly on state-controlled broadcast media and tabloid newspapers.

The truth is, Bangkokians who dislike Thaksin would rather forget that there exists the other Thailand, the many people who still cherish Thaksin. The reality demands however that they have a share in the same society, at least when it comes to the political dimension, with the rural poor such as those in the Northeast who constitute the majority of the Kingdom's population.

At the same time, the rural poor also all-too-conveniently buy into the logic propagated by some government supporters that those who oppose Thaksin and the ruling party are opposing them simply because they have some personal conflict with Thaksin and his Thai Rak Thai Party. And each camp thinks they're absolutely right.

Under this circumstance, the challenge is how to respect the other's view while still maintaining one's conviction. The greater challenge is not for all to avoid the differences in a shallow and short-sighted spirit of reconciliation, but to learn how to deal with differences constructively and find a political solution that will also take opposite views into consideration.

Political conflicts are a normal and even essential part of a democratic society, but it's how the conflicts are resolved that reflects the strength and maturity of that society as a democracy.

Pravit Rojanaphruk

The Nation