• 
• 
• 

To his supporters, it's a signal from the prime minister that he has built up sufficient confidence to let the public decide to give him a full mandate, instead of the current cliff-hanging majority in the House.

To his foes, Abhisit, by offering a rough timeline for his tenure, is suggesting that he won't stay in power longer than is necessary. The Democrat leader is attempting to pre-empt any serious move to topple him through fear that he might pick up enough political leverage along the way to stay the remainder of the full term. Three years is simply too long and too painful for an opposition party that is bent on returning to power as soon as it can.

Specifically for fugitive Thaksin Shinawatra, Abhisit may be sending the message that with the election not too far off, it would be suicidal for the ex-premier to instigate further trouble.

Thaksin has always insisted that his nominated political party, no matter who is the nominee leader, could beat the Democrats hands down in any new election.

"Bloody Songkran" may have dented that hubris somewhat, but with the offer of a more-or-less specific timeframe, Abhisit probably hopes to deprive Thaksin of any excuse to stir up more trouble through some of his red-shirted provocateurs.

To the international arena, Abhisit's public pledge of a return to the people for a mandate will put to rest any doubt within certain circles that his government is in fact a puppet of the military establishment - an allegation being bandied about by Thaksin and his publicists.

The prime minister's statement means he has set in motion the process of returning Thailand to "normalcy" - and to confirm his oft-repeated pledge that once things are "back to normal", he will go back to the people to decide the country's future democratic path.

But by setting a 6-to-8-month deadline, Abhisit is in fact rejecting Thaksin's campaign - tainted by unprecedented and ferocious rhetoric and physical violence - to pressure Abhisit into dissolving the House and calling an immediate election.

That obviously is too huge a risk for the country to take. The vicious circle would recur and the country would be plunged into a new round of devastating violence.

For one thing, the opposition Pheu Thai Party has been calling for changes to certain clauses in the constitution. Its demand for an immediate election is therefore self-contradictory at best.

As long as the political ground rules remain the major controversy splitting the country, the results of an election under the current charter would only prolong the confrontation.

Besides, if election campaigns are launched now before the ground rules are rewritten to strike a compromise among various factions, chaos could reign and blood might be spilled.

Law and order would go down the drain.

Of course, the opposition, run by Thaksin from his "government in exile", will inevitably interpret Abhisit's move as an attempt to buy time to build up the Democrat Party's electoral base before facing the voters again.

Abhisit's legitimacy can therefore be enhanced only if he proceeds with the political reform process with speed, determination and transparency.

The formation of a bipartisan panel to consider proposals for changes to the constitution is a move in the right direction. But the premier must ensure that the government, while offering unconditional support for, won't "interfere with", the process of national reconciliation - which, after all, means it can't be a one-sided affair.

Can Abhisit live up to the pledge? The answer is yes if he can make the next six months a pro-active, multi-pronged offensive for a genuine non-partisan move forward on all fronts.

But if the timeline he draws up is nothing more than a political ploy to gain leverage for his Democrat Party in the next poll, then the answer is a resounding "No".