This Sunday's election promises to be one of the most controversial in Thai political history. When Thaksin decided to dissolve the House of Representatives 37 days ago to call this snap election, the official reason he gave was that those protesting against his rule and calling upon him to quit were threatening the country's security.

A few days later, he changed his tack, saying that the new election - to be held only slightly more than one year after he won an overwhelming majority in the January, 2005, general election - was to allow the people to decide whether he should step down or not. And when political pressure grew instead of eased, Thaksin sought legitimacy by saying that if voters cast fewer than half the total votes for him and his party, he would not accept the premiership after the election.

That pledge came after the major opposition parties led by the Democrats decided to boycott the election on the grounds that there had not in fact been a legitimate reason to dissolve the House in the first place since there was no real conflict between the government and the legislative branch. Normally that would be the only valid reason to call a new election, which would enable the people to decide whose side they were on.

Thaksin's Thai Rak Thai, caught off-guard by the move, resorted to new tactics by wooing, coercing and even allegedly providing incentives to a number of heretofore unknown parties to take part in the otherwise one-sided competition. The result was a sham. Most of the candidates from the small parties were disqualified because their party membership was short of the required 90 days. Many others didn't have the necessary schooling qualifications.

The real scandal surfaced when several were caught having been paid by a major party to run in the election. All in all it has been a brazen attempt to lend legitimacy to a travesty of democracy.

And what's worse, the April 2 election, if it materialises (there are lingering doubts even four days before it is due to happen), will inevitably lead to further crises.

The new House will find that convening after the election to vote on a prime minister is a real uphill task for two reasons: 1) Several constituencies with single candidates won't produce MPs because no one will receive 20 per cent of the vote as required by the Constitution. 2) Thai Rak Thai submitted a party list with only 99 names, which means that even if 400 MPs were elected, it is highly unlikely that the House's full complement of 500 would be filled because no other party in the race is expected to pick up 5 per cent of the total ballots, the minimum to qualify for party-list candidates.

A constitutional crisis looms and no solution is in sight.

That renders meaningless and even absurd Thaksin's pledge not to take up the premiership if his party fails to get more than half of the total votes cast on election day.

Even if one were to lend credence to Thaksin's attempts to ignore the inevitability of a post-election deadlock, the emergence of a comical single-party House along with a one-party executive branch without a proper opposition party will make Thailand the laughing stock on the world's political scene. Any talk of a democratic system of checks and balances would become ludicrous.

Believe it or not, Thaksin calls this insane, Bt2-billion political game a symbol of democracy. I call it a whitewash exercise wrapped in fraudulent democracy. Welcome to an era of perpetual crises that serve to perpetuate the leader's power.

Suthichai Yoon