'Technical' escape leaves politics more or less the same

The outcome had to please someone and upset another. That much we could easily predict. It was the manner in which the Democrats got off the hook in the party dissolution case that surprised supporters and foes alike.

After months or speculation, anxiety and anticipation, the Constitution Court simply declared there was no case.

Immediate reactions from all parties were almost muted bewilderment. When the court announced that the case was being dropped, only about 40 minutes had passed in the reading of the ruling. For the Democrats and their supporters, relief came too fast. The other side was stunned and it took time for anger to sink in.

When the impact of the anti-climax fades, key questions will come to the fore. What took the court so long to arrive at the decision that the case had expired? Was Apichart Sukakanont, whose mixed-up roles as party registrar and chairman of the Election Commission contributed to the collapse of the case, in fact a "Trojan Horse"? How will the court ruling affect another party dissolution case against the Democrats? What will the red shirts do now?

So, what kept the court from throwing the case out from the start? One sympathetic explanation would be that doing so would have triggered furious reaction nonetheless. Or it could be that arguments against legitimacy of the case required inquiry into activities or technicality that needed time to clarify. Moreover, the trial allowed impression that the court did not imprudently reject the case out of hand.

Of course, rivals of the Democrats must be suspecting an "easy way out". Even many neutral observers were bemused, saying they would rather see the court deal with "evidence" instead of technicality.

The court's possible answer to that, however, may have to be read in between the lines of its ruling, which gave a lot of emphasis on Apichart's double hats as political party registrar and EC chairman. The ruling noted that Apichart, as party registrar, had exercised his legal power one way and Apichart the EC chairman the other. From the ruling, the case collapsed around Apichart's changes of stand and the EC's mistimed activities in bid to formulate the charges.

Democrats' political rivals, however, will put everything under a microscope. The Pheu Thai Party vowed an autopsy of the aborted case and relevant ones in the past. Previous dissolution of parties will be restudied and compared with yesterday's ruling and no stone will be left unturned for any discrepancies.

The red shirts are expected to at least wait for loopholes to be found in the ruling before mapping out key strategies. Protests over "double standard" could be intermittent in the meantime, but any major move will have to be accompanied by a solid rallying cry. The Thai public can rest assured that they will continue to be bombarded with legal technicality for a long time after this.

The Bt258 million "illegal donation" case is still alive, but it is intertwined with the Bt29 million case which was dropped yesterday. Initial reports that the Democrats might petition the court to also nullify the remaining case on the same grounds were laughed off by some Democrat lawyers, but possibility of them resorting to that strategy will persist.

The Bt258 million case will also put Apichart right back in the centre stage as his past role concerning it will carry a weight on the trial. The court has not set any date but proceedings are expected to begin early next year, and take months if the case is not rejected outright.

The Democrats will be stronger politically, at least for a while, with greater bargaining power to deal with naughty allies. Their opponents will have to rethink strategies.

Pheu Thai was saying yesterday that the Bt29 million ruling would make its campaign for the next election much easier. That was little more than self-consolation. While the ruling may have deepened the divide, it's unlikely to make members of "the other camp" embrace the red cause. Guilty or not guilty, case dismissed or solid, double standard or single standard, Thailand's political landscape will essentially not change. Reds will be reds and will vote for Pheu Thai in elections come what may, and their rivals will continue to reject candidates associated, blatantly or perceptively, with Thaksin Shinawatra.