It's not about retaining power; it's about leadership

No, he didn't exactly put it that way. But the message I got from Premier Abhisit Vejjajiva's weekly television show last Sunday was loud and clear: Let a real, broad-based political debate replace chaos on the streets.

The big question is: How does he create an atmosphere where not only the red and yellow shirts - but the rest of us - will actively partake in a genuine reconciliation process.

And when he declared that he was willing to listen to suggestions about an amnesty - a subject he had pooh-poohed all along - Abhisit was clearly proposing the first step of a national rehabilitation process.

But lest anybody think he was caving in to demands from the man with a Nicaraguan passport, Abhisit was quick to add that any discussion on the possible granting of a sweeping pardon would be of a strictly political nature - and that letting criminal offenders off the hook would be out of the question.

In other words, the line has to be drawn between political offences and convictions for corruption and conflict of interest. In more or less the same vein, Abhisit has drawn the line between red shirts genuinely disaffected a sense of injustice and those bent on using violence to achieve political goals.

In the process, he will have to walk the walk. He may have repeatedly denied adopting double standards in his treatment of the reds and the yellows, but Abhisit seems to have finally come to the realisation that the suspicion is far more deep-rooted than he had been willing to accept.

It was no easy task to dismiss the perception that the Democrats and the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) were in cahoots against Thaksin Shinawatra and what consequently became the red-shirt movement. Worse, it was almost impossible to dismiss the notion that the Democrats and PAD were part and parcel of the September 2006 coup - and, in turn, the Army was behind the formation of the current Abhisit-led coalition government.

Abhisit, having tried to ignore the allegations all along, knew that he could no longer take those charges lightly. He has, since the disastrous collapse of the Asean+3 and Asean+6 meetings in Pattaya, and subsequent life-threatening attacks against him, decided to tackle the issues head-on.

For, after all, if he can't bring about political stability, his more ambitious plan to overcome the economic crisis will be stillborn - and that in turn will spell the end of his political fortune for the time being.

What, then, must he do to overcome the prevailing impasse?

Abhisit will have to unplug the country from its obsession with Thaksin's every move and statement. To achieve that, he will have to initiate moves that will address what I would call the "red-shirt agenda" - as distinct from "Thaksin's personal goals".

The former is a legitimate list of concerns - regardless of political affiliation - that are relevant not only to some of the "genuine" protesters but also of great significance to the cause of the general citizenry. They include such long-standing and crucial questions as social justice, equal opportunities, transparency, economic malaise and the accountability of public servants and politicians.

Abhisit may not want to "negotiate" with Thaksin, whose daily flip-flops have become self-destructive anyway. But he will have to take the issues of double standards and social justice, as well as national reconciliation, seriously.

Judging from the shifting facial expressions, from his worst moment after the Interior Ministry attack to his recovery phase after he bounced back from the abyss, I could sense a tremendous and sudden transformation in a man determined to learn from that unprecedented and totally unexpected life-threatening experience.

And that lesson is: Beyond the worst fear there is the courage to be humble.

For Abhisit, that courage to face reality is to include every party - especially his "legitimate" opponents - in his attempt to be humble enough to tackle all relevant issues head-on.

In that newfound spirit of public service, the crucial goal isn't about how to win the political game to retain power. It's about how to take charge of a nation in desperate search of quality leadership - not self-serving, empty rhetoric.