Their arguments centre on the question of the legitimacy of the election, which is widely seen as a political exercise to whitewash embattled Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra.

It's obvious Thaksin is gambling on the poll to restore his political mandate, which has been seriously challenged by growing numbers of citizens angered by allegations of conflicts of interest and corruption against the prime minister and his family and associates. But with the so-called "incumbent advantage" and an unrivalled war chest, the caretaker leader is turning the poll into a stage-managed political show whose result is a foregone conclusion.

However Thaksin tries to defend his decision to dissolve Parliament, the move is hardly justified. Traditionally, dissolution is warranted only to break a political deadlock that threatens to paralyse the functioning of the government or legislative branch. But such a situation did not exist when Thaksin announced the dissolution on February 24.

Thaksin raised the spectre of violence posed by a major rally to be organised by the People's Alliance for Democracy at Sanam Luang as a major reason for the dissolution. Addressing the nation in a live television broadcast to justify his decision, he cited "intelligence reports" claiming "certain elements" were plotting to instigate violence on the scale of the Bloody May uprising of 1992.

But the event passed without a single drop of blood being shed. And the subsequent street demonstrations that culminated with the picketing of Government House and marches through Bangkok's business district also passed peacefully.

The opposition parties' boycott of the election is paving the way for an electoral stalemate. There is a strong likelihood that candidates running unopposed in many constituencies will not receive the 20 per cent of the vote required to qualify as an elected MP. That would mean the EC would have to call new rounds of elections in those constituencies until they did get the required votes.

And as the repeat polls get underway, legal experts believe the House of Representatives will be paralysed, because the Constitution requires all 500 MPs for a first sitting within 30 days after the election. The election of the prime minister is also automatically out of the question until that time.

Potential constitutional troubles aside, the April 2 poll is also setting the stage for what many fear will become serious political discord among the public at large, threatening to tear apart the social fabric.

Thaksin's political brinkmanship is already perilously pushing Thai society towards an unprecedented polarisation. The caretaker prime minister has made it clear he has no qualms about mobilising the rural masses who have been the main beneficiaries of his populist policies to counter the pro-democracy movement consisting largely of the middle class and intellectuals campaigning for his ouster. This confrontation has sown the seeds of a potentially violent division that is worsening daily.

Far from defusing the rising political tensions, the April 2 election instead will most likely plunge the country into a deeper crisis. The political divide that the country is facing will become unbridgeable as the population becomes formally classified through the ballot box as pro- and anti-Thaksin. Post-election Thailand will see a society so deeply divided that Thaksin may find it impossible to govern even with an officially sanctioned electoral mandate.

The snap election cannot in any way substitute for answering charges of corruption, cronyism and conflicts of interest levelled against the prime minister. No political leader can earn the people's trust by going into an election with such charges hanging over his head. In fact, under no circumstances should politicians be allowed to use the electoral process to whitewash themselves.

But Thaksin is trying to create a precedent. Instead of facing those charges via the normal legal or legislative process, he has chosen to use electoral votes that he believes he and his political machine can influence to absolve him. A poll victory for Thaksin would be tantamount to a deathblow to any attempt to hold him accountable for his alleged past misdeeds.

Even without any urging from media organisations and other groups concerned about potential political and social damage from the election, the EC should be able to foresee the post-election scenarios. The commission has already been inundated with hordes of complaints of alleged wrongdoing that may lead to the disqualification of many candidates, potentially complicating the electoral process even further.

Although EC chairman Police Lt-General Vasana Puemlarp hinted over the weekend that he was concerned next Sunday's election was fraught with problems, he stopped short of committing himself to what the commission should do to avert the looming crisis.

The EC may claim it is bound by its constitutional duty to proceed with the election because the power to delay elections rests with the government. But as an independent agency, it cannot afford to be oblivious to public expectations that it exercise independence in its judgement - especially when the national interest is at stake.

Thepchai Yong