• 
• 
• 

On the one hand, we can see it as a semblance of normalcy. A censure debate has just concluded, with the usual trademarks - occasional boredom, intermittent excitement, eyebrow-raising vulgarity, some moments of hilarity and eventual government victory. It was by all means a welcome change from street tension that prevailed much of last year, and both the government and opposition camps deserve credit for this small step forward for our still-fragile democracy.

But is it truly a step forward?

If we are to extract real substance from this debate and related circumstances, we will see that the fundamental flaws that led us here in the first place remain unchanged. The "illegal donations" scandal is arguably a mini-version of the abuses and exploitations that culminated in our political crisis, and the case will have to go through a checks-and-balances system, which has been accused of going to sleep during the Thaksin era and is seen as anything but unbiased post-Thaksin.

The national divide was reflected deeply during the debate, while the outcome of the judicial clampdown on the People Power Party was obvious in the Pheu Thai Party's serious lack of experienced debaters for the crucial showdown. In short, the debate showed us that our politics is still far from normal, a product of years of turmoil rather than real signs of progress.

Optimists see the debate as a promise of a new start, where anger, conflicts, frustration and all else can be addressed in one legitimate place. Others believe the debate is just a new battle front in the ongoing war. Next week, the red-shirt movement will hold what it claims will be its biggest rally ever, partly to pursue its original anti-government agenda and partly to follow up on any advantage produced during the censure session. Thaksin Shinawatra will continue his phone-ins, and the Democrat government will remain torn between legal cases against red-shirted protesters and their yellow-shirted rivals.

In an exclusive interview with The Nation last week, Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva indirectly admitted the yellow-red divide was now a prolonged national conflict. He was optimistic, though, about the fact that his government, unlike the previous Samak and Somchai administrations, had been able to actually function along with other democratic institutions.

How much confidence he still has after the debate remains to be seen. Opposition leader Chalerm Yoobamrung managed to plant new seeds of political uncertainty with the exposure of the donations scandal, which most likely will have to go through both the National Anti-Corruption Commission and the Election Commission. And while we welcome the fact that the political divide can now be played out in Parliament, at least partially, not much else inspires optimism.

However, people who watched the debate closely can't help wondering if the political crisis is in fact something that has little to do with elected politicians. While the opposition MPs focused their attack on Abhisit's association with the People's Alliance for Democracy and much of Friday was spent on Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya's strong links with the PAD, it looked more like a show than a passionate, ideologically driven assault.

There were times when tempers flared, but there were also relaxed moments that gave both sides away. Our politicians, it was clear, remain undivided by ideologies, and only vested interests can draw the battle lines. The current crisis is something that spreads far beyond the assembly hall and is writing the scripts for individual politicians to play. To a certain extent, the phenomenon is not too bad. For the first time, parliamentary politics is not being dictated solely by a few individuals, or a few personal agendas or hidden interests of those elected. The majority of MPs taking part in the two-day debate were neither "yellow" nor "red", at least ideologically, but a lot of them had to play their roles with either "yellow" or "red" strings attached.

How we can turn the "outside" energy into a constructive force and channel it to Parliament the right way is the biggest question at the moment. The right balance has not been found yet, and the past few years have seen extreme swings to either ideological rigidity or total lack of principles. When the outside force starts to settle down and find the right place and role in the country's political realm, then maybe politics can take a favourable form. Only then will we not be content with just a semblance of normalcy. Only then can the nation be really ambitious about its democracy.