The growing rallying cry is for him to step down unconditionally, to put the country back on track. Thaksin responded by proposing a "compromise" that in effect would extend his stay in office by about one year. He said the April 2 snap election - boycotted by all of the major opposition parties - would produce a "transitional government" (again headed by him) that would oversee amendments to the Constitution by a "neutral" assembly comprised of experts from various walks of life. The duration would, as Thaksin put it, be one year "plus or minus three months".

In other words, Thaksin's counter-offer, in a nutshell, is: "I am not going to quit. I am staying on, and I am going to preside over the political reform, on my terms."

He calls that a compromise. The protesters call it a dirty trick to hang on to power.

Thaksin insists that by defying public calls for his ouster, he is simply trying to defend the democratic system. His opponents, whose numbers are growing by the day, say he is in fact undermining the whole system by dragging the country into an explosive social dead end, a political cul-de-sac and a constitutional quagmire - very possibly one hell of a national crisis.

Thaksin can see all of these crises if he continues along this dangerous road. Yet he persists in challenging his critics, as if he were determined to take the country down with him.

The first major issue that could arise, if he still refuses to quit and insists on holding the April 2 election, is a political crisis if the day's balloting fails to produce 500 MPs. This would happen if Thaksin's Thai Rak Thai candidates fail to garner a minimum 20 per cent of the vote in constituencies where they face no opponents.

If they cannot get 500 MPs, the House cannot convene to pick a new prime minister. Such a disturbing political vacuum would prolong the crisis, and constitutional options would be limited. And even if, through some sort of innovative but questionable manipulation, Thaksin did manage to get a 500-member House installed, it would be a bizarre Thai Rak Thai-only House. There wouldn't be any "royally-appointed opposition leader", because that would require at least 100 MPs who belonged to a non-government party. The new post-April 2 House has already been labelled the political joke of the century.

Now, if we pursue this absurd scenario along the lines of Thaksin's shameless "compromise", he would become prime minister again, supported by a House filled solely with Thai Rak Thai MPs. He would then name a constitutional-amendment assembly comprising "neutral personalities" to embark on his promised "political reform". The big question is: Who would name the so-called neutral personalities? Thaksin himself would inevitably be involved in the process. Could you trust Thaksin to be neutral or impartial or sincere after what he has done to the country's political processes?

The assembly that would be set up after the installation of the Thaksin-led transitional government following the grotesque April 2 election would be another absurd political innovation. It would inevitably be followed by another ludicrous episode: the amended constitution would have to be approved by the House, which would totally or almost 100 per cent be represented by Thaksin's very own Thai Rak Thai Party.

Doesn't Thaksin see the menacing scenarios coming our way? Of course, he does. Why then, doesn't he make the necessary moves to defuse the situation, before the whole country runs smack into the political minefield?

The only possible answer is that he has yet to recover from a serious combination of self-delusion, extreme fear of losing power and panic over the possible loss of his personal wealth.

All I know is that we can't let him drag the nation past that dangerous political signpost. And from all indications, it is becoming increasingly clear that the country does not have the luxury of even two weeks in which to do that.

Suthichai Yoon