When it comes to the "Judgement Day", May 30, the Constitution Tribunal will rule if either of the two rivals should be dissolved for committing election fraud. However, "pure politics" rather than the hearings could sway the result.

The forthcoming May 30 is reminiscent of the crucial hours of August 3, 2001 when thousands of supporters surrounded the Constitution Court compound, awaiting a verdict that could have banned then prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra from assuming a political post for five years if found guilty.

His opponents would have been delighted to see him unseated. The Thaksin supporters, in the meantime, had only one conclusion on their minds. Their premier was innocent of a charge by the National Counter Corruption Commission (NCCC) that he had concealed his assets.

While the anti-graft body insisted on Thaksin's "guilt", the final examination process by the Constitution Court had to face huge political pressure.

Thaksin had been the premier for only seven months after his TRT won the January national poll in a landslide. Hence, many people had high expectations of him to "revive" the country, which had slowly recovered from bankruptcy since an economic crisis hit in 1997. The early exit of Thaksin could blow the dream, they believed.

A mass signature campaign to save Thaksin was carried out nation-wide. Some of his supporters warned that national order and unity could be in jeopardy if their man was ousted.

Tensions escalated while allegations of bribery and threats on life loomed over those involving in the case.

A few years after Thaksin survived the five-year ban by 8-7 votes, one of the eight judges who ruled in favour of the premier admitted that the scary atmosphere on the day led him to expect the court's building would be "set on fire" if the court removed Thaksin from the premiership.

Politics these days is no different from the heyday of Thaksin.

Tensions are mounting as the Council for National Security (CNS) - as the junta calls itself - desperately attempts to make a smooth transition of power to a new elected government, amid political uncertainty and possible violence caused by rival camps involved in the conflict.

Meanwhile, the CNS wants to ensure that the deposed premier and his cronies have no chance to make a return. Otherwise, all the CNS generals will have to pay the price that Thaksin had paid in the coup - which could well mean "revenge".

Although the September 19 coup annulled the 1997 Constitution, the CNS realised the rule of five-year ban should be kept for those executives whose party is dissolved.

In other words, the junta wants to "warn" the heavyweights of the Thai Rak Thai and the Democrats that they have only two choices; either show obedience to the new rulers or be scrapped from politics.

The Constitution Tribunal was founded to handle the dissolution cases. The TRT is alleged to have hired small parties to fill candidates in the April 2 poll and supporting small parties to amend the political party membership registration.

The Democrats are charged of joining the People's Alliance for Democracy to topple and frame the TRT government and hiring MP candidates from small parties to frame the TRT.

The level of their "obedience" is believed to be a crucial factor in the final verdicts.

Seven months after the coup, however, the balance of power has shifted. The public have questioned if the national benefit, which the CNS claimed for ousting Thaksin, has gone to the people or rather only to a small group of the new rulers.

The CNS is in trouble with the poor performance of Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont. Deposed premier Thaksin looks to be gaining momentum for his "smooth comeback" while his supporters have jumped into the streets, in a bid to topple the CNS.

Now the countdown has begun, one thing can be expected to happen on May 30. Thousands of the two parties' supporters will reserve their space in front of the Constitutional Tribunal's office - the same building of the defunct Constitution Court - to witness the historic verdicts.

Should precautions for a possible confrontation be considered? Yes, they should.

Will the dissolution of the two parties, or only one, be a good idea?

The "confession" of the judge in Thaksin's case should not be taken for granted.

Weerayut Chokchaimadon

 The Nation