Conclusive outcome needed in battle for democracy

The irony is opposing sides each claim to be the champions of democracy. While the political battle is fought, people are living in suspense.

Uncertainty is likely to persist until the government and the PAD can find a way to accommodate one another, or wipe the other out.

Any attempts at a truce before the fight is fought to the last will only leave a festering problem.

The government and the PAD should be allowed to outwit or outlast the other, rather than have an inconclusive fight return to haunt the country time and again. The catch is whether the opposing sides can carry the struggle without blood being spilled.

Confusion is deemed an acceptable price for the opposing sides to slug it out. But bloodshed and anarchy are not. Soldiers will certainly march if a state of lawlessness erupts.

The government and the PAD are expected to take the gloves off, but stop short of triggering anarchy. They are fighting to advance their own versions of political idealism and not to bring about the destruction of democracy.

The alliance began its opposition movement crusading to uproot the Thaksin Shinawatra regime in 2005 but has since evolved into a viable political force - but one that appears at odds with the electoral system.

In other democracies, civil society and the parliamentary political system thrive together. But Thailand just witnessed direct participation by the people sanctioned by the suspended 1997 Constitution.

The concept of direct participation by the people is relatively new here and mainstream politics has yet to accommodate the growth of civil society.

The PAD has succeeded in becoming a player on the political scene even though it has not clearly defined its goals or aspirations. Many in the intelligentsia hope its success, whatever that means depending on one's political theory, will help participation by the people to gain a firm foothold in the political process.

The exchange of barbs between the PAD and the government is rhetoric. The fundamental problem is that the sides have yet to learn they can coexist, instead of destroying the other.

The demand for the exit of Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej is just the tip of an iceberg. The PAD has already moved the goal posts and floated its idea for a complete revamp of the electoral system. This is seen as a ploy to get rid of coalition MPs, particularly those from the People Power Party.

At this juncture, the rise and fall of the Samak government is secondary to what the future holds for the country if there is no accepted arrangement for an elected government and the direct participation of the people to coexist.

The PAD and the government are in uncharted territory and the outcome of their fight is the key to ensure a sustainable political system.

Thus far, the government is pinning its hopes on a long, drawn-out battle that tires the opposition movement. In turn, the PAD is progressively building a united front with trade unions to bring about the government's downfall.

Pro-government activists and those backing the PAD are both from the so-called October generation. Both camps are evenly matched in clout and experience. It remains to be seen which side can outwit the other to woo workers to its camp.

The sides are expected to wrestle for news media attention to sway sentiment while working behind the scenes to attract the support of labour, now seen as the lynchpin.