• 
• 

In fact, the idea looks so reasonable it begs the question why we have had to wait this long to ponder the option.

But the real question should be whether it's too late now. Will Thailand be able to live happily after either a "guilty" or "not guilty" verdict, even assuming the judges who will hand down the ruling are 100 per cent neutral and incorruptible?

Former prime minister Anand Panyarachun doesn't believe we will. The divide is now too deep-rooted and far beyond reconciliation. The stakes remain high for the rivals and no truce or compromise is possible. Anand is not alone in thinking that the game is going into sudden death with unpredictable consequences.

To demand a strictly neutral legal process is one thing, to set it up is another. And if we look at Thaksin Shinawatra's defence strategy, such a process could be doomed even before it is born. With the Assets Examination Committee having no legitimacy in the eyes of the pro-Thaksin camp, where do we start?

Then there are the issues of the police, prosecutors and the judges. The police have declared war on the AEC members, who do not have prosecutors as their best friends, either. As for the judges, whatever ruling they make is bound to be deemed unfair by the losing side.

We are practically seeing an OJ Simpson drama unfolding on our own soil. A lot of people believe he is guilty, just as it is quite obvious that Thaksin was a cheat - but was "evidence" gathered fairly without malicious intention to "nail" both suspects? OJ said a glove was planted and blood drops were suspicious, whereas Thaksin said the Assets Examination Committee had all the power to abuse during the investigation. Just as the dead bodies, motives and infamous escape attempt didn't matter in the OJ case, the existence of Ample Rich and other nominees that facilitated tax evasion has been trivialised by Thaksin defenders.

The Americans were lucky because OJ won in one court and lost in another - a face-saving tie for both camps, and any threat of racial war was diminished. The Thai situation is winner takes all and the showdown has been raging at the very heart of all political and administrative mechanisms. Those mechanisms will determine who takes all the stakes, and they are all stakes themselves.

We don't need a mediator. We simply need a good, respectable referee. The fight has turned nasty because the first referee was biased toward Thaksin (the 2001 share concealment case), while the second was against him (the post-coup legal clampdown).

The third referee (post-election) can be considered non-existent as we don't know who is more credible - the AEC, prosecutors, the National Counter Corruption Commission or the police?

Should we go back to square one, this time for good reason?

A national commission to try Thaksin before the public may seem far-fetched and legally troublesome, but if it's the only way to make both sides accept the process, perhaps we should start looking into the possibilities.

Most of all, that we are in a national emergency alone should justify anything that could help.

Within this proposal lie two compromises for both sides. First, the politically questionable AEC will retreat from the scene. Second, the Thaksin camp will do what it has avoided all along - put him on the stand to face all the charges.

We have broken all the rules before, for less severe crises. We have had special national assemblies formed to write constitutions. We have pondered setting up national reconciliation governments and even sought a royally-appointed prime minister. Installing an extraordinary legal process to tackle the root cause of a deepening impasse shouldn't hurt.

Who should be involved in the process would be the most difficult question. But if it's a transparent process taking place in full view of the public, the commissioners (or whatever we call them) would be of lesser concern. And they should receive greater acceptance than prosecutors or investigators working in a hushed and secretive environment.

For all its casualties, this political war has lacked a real showdown. Charges against Thaksin and his counter-charges have never been presented on a neutral stage in a transparent manner. They have been traded via loudspeakers at rally stages, one-sided press conferences or on emotion-choked websites.

Maybe it's time for a real duel to end it once and for all.