• 
• 

What is at stake - and despite what both sides are saying - is not whether democracy is here to stay in Thailand or not. But rather it is about how to make politics work in order to have a robust democracy.

Politics is the essential mechanism of democracy. Politics is an art of compromise and sharing of group interests under the rule of law. Governments or anti-government movements come and go as compromises are made. But in the current crisis, this mechanism has been rendered obsolete. The blame rests with ex-premier Thaksin Shinawatra, the military establishment and certain restrictions under the 1997 Constitution.

Prior to the 2006 coup, Thaksin had at least four opportunities to resign or dissolve the House. He didn't act on them. But the prerogative to change the government did not lie with just one man. Change could also have come about if the coalition parties had pulled out of the government. But they couldn't because MPs were locked under the 1997 Constitution, barring them from switching parties under the 90-day rule. The deadlock in September 2006 led to a coup, which the military and many others hoped would help to unlock the deadlock.

Well, it didn't because of gross incompetence, a lack of vision and scant attention paid to the understanding of the political process. The military and the drafters of the 2007 charter concentrated on trying to clean up politics and politicians and in bringing clarity to the conflict-of-interest agenda for public office holders. What they forgot to do and did not think of was to unshackle the democratic mechanism to allow for a smooth democratic process including an easy transition of governments - when there is a political dead-end.

In its place has come the unsavoury People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD), two successive nominee governments, military influence in politics, and the exercise of a one-man one-vote as an absolute political justification over minority interest. But these are symptoms of factional politics or at best, they further complicate the situation prevailing at the moment.

Again, normal democracy is prevented from taking its natural course. If politics is an art of compromise, the situation calls for a House dissolution at best once again. But this has not happened - why? The Somchai government is refusing to shuffle its cards to protect the interest of the ex-premier. Other coalition partners are understood to be fed up with the deadlock but can't act. This time, it has less to do with the 90-day rule but rather the threat of their party's dissolution as punishment for election fraud.

Factional leaders including the military have talked about allowing politics to resolve itself but they have not followed through. PAD's new politics is a Trojan Horse and so too is Thaksin's drum-up about Thai democracy, which fires the imagination of the foreign press and the international community.

So, what's to be done? It can well start with what suppressed factions within the ruling People Power Party and the coalition parties want - including giving the opposition Democrat Party a role to play. Like many, the Democrats have become obsessed with Thaksin issues rather than trying to see through the political system that allows room for the democratic process to move the system and players forward. Here, can the Democrat Party support the eventual constitutional amendment to aid, say, the Chart Thai Party? Can they all sink their mutual interests into a solution that can break the political impasse?

Can the Democrat Party appear credible enough to other political parties and some factions of the People Power Party to see through the interests of MPs? Politicians are a peculiar animal - whose foes can become friends at odd times! Political old hands from the Democrat, Chart Thai and Ruam Jai Thai Chart Pattana parties as well as Newin friends can see through what Thaksin is after - and make accommodations where long-term national interest is served!

Another point to ponder is a spin on the judiciary and legal decisions involving Thaksin. His cases are mainly associated with a conflict of interest - a subject quite new to most Thais.

Thaksin's best hope of reversing these cases against him is something not without precedent in world politics. Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi dominated his political agenda with his personal and corporate interests. His government had been rushing through an immunity bill and other ad personam measures to protect himself against prosecution. The Italian prime minister, however, has no such staunch opposition like the Thai PAD.

Again, this is a game in which the Democrat Party and MPs from other parties can have a say. A political compromise is not an end in itself but a means to an end.

Opponents of Thaksin and his nominee government may have succeeded in creating wishful thinking but the country is counting the cost of this illusive victory.

The real victory lies with the judicial ruling, but don't confuse this with a political victory. Here, PAD, the military and others have adopted erroneous strategies, which play into Thaksin's hands.

They are no match against the marketing and PR skills of the former Thai prime minister. And the battle is not won on public sentiment on a day-to-day basis but on seeing through democratic mechanisms and principles that have their own natural course. Thaksin was the prime example of failing to see this through but other politicians should not be held hostage to this narrow vision.

Simple as a strand of hair being blocked by an elephant!