• 
• 

Recent developments are very disturbing. The government and the opposition movement led by the People's Alliance for Democracy both seem prepared to inflame political animosity should the judicial review fail to destroy the other side.

For months the PAD has been swaying the public to expect nothing short of litigating the government out of existence and convicting former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra of graft charges.

It appears determined to con-tinue its street protests until it can settle old scores. The five PAD leaders are determined to accomplish their job with a vengeance. It is frightening to think what might happen if the judicial decisions do not go the way the five hope.

In other democracies, civic groups are supposed to be a counter-balancing force to main-stream politicians. But certain activists with an elitist attitude seem to have taken civic action to a whole new level - to super-sede the mainstream politics of parliamentary representation.

It is utterly shameful of the PAD to come up with a proposal to scale down popular democracy by allocating House seats to "appointed" representatives. There are many shades of democracy but the bottom line is that the voice of the people is indispensable.

With the PAD well on the path to an all-out war, the government appears equally prepared for eye-for-an-eye retaliation.

On Sunday, Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej complained about what he sees as the judici-ary meddling in politics. He claimed that the judiciary sought to overshadow the government beyond the system of checks and balances.

Samak singled out the recent injunction to suspend the Cabinet resolution on Preah Vihear Temple as an example of the judi-ciary preventing the government from doing its job. He also made the observation that former judges appear to dominate inde-pendent organisations such as the Election Commission.

In a nutshell, the prime minis-ter has apparently employed a similar tactic to that of the PAD in order to sway the court of pub-lic opinion, aiming for leverage to swing the Court of Justice to go the government's way.

The opposing sides are politi-cising the judicial review without justification. The litigation can only address the legal issues and not the political ones.

Political differences have to be resolved by political means. If the parties concerned are not ready for reconciliation, then they should learn to be tolerant instead of stoking up the false expectation that litigation can wipe out political adversaries.

As of today, the country is set-ting foot into a legal minefield; each highly politicised court bat-tle is a political time-bomb.

The Supreme Court is expect-ed to hand down a decision on the electoral fraud case involving People Power party-list MP Yongyuth Tiyapairat. The oppos-ing sides have already started speculating about the political implications. For the government, an acquittal is a foregone conclu-sion and preparations are being made for Yongyuth to join the Cabinet. For the PAD, a convic-tion is a certainty, leading to the dissolution of the main coalition party.

Also today, the High Court's graft tribunal will start hearing witnesses on the Ratchadaphisek land case involving Thaksin and his wife. His other graft cases are scheduled to follow.

Later this month, the Criminal Court will rule on the tax evasion case involving Thaksin's wife Pojaman. The Constitution Court will then decide on Samak's qual-ifications to lead the country - put into doubt by his involvement in two cooking shows.

Political volatility is unavoid-able because the opposing sides are bent on swaying the judiciary for political gain.