The real reason behind that is he was too scared to face a national enquiry on the highly dubious sales of his family's shares in Shin Corp to Singapore's Temasek Holdings.

Every chaotic episode since then is only an offshoot of that single irrational, selfish and inexcusable decision by Thaksin Shinawatra. Now that His Majesty the King's wise words have nudged the judicial branch into cracking the nine-week impasse, the constitutionality crisis seems solvable once again. But a "technical solution" doesn't necessarily mean the whole political landscape has been wiped clean and that we now have a clean slate with which to embark on the political process.

Emerging from a "legality" trap, the country may yet become ensnared in a new legitimacy crisis. Some of Thaksin's underlings are already saying "all bets are off" should the court invalidate the April 2 election - and that Thaksin can call off his "political holiday". In other words, some hard-core Thai Rak Thai members are saying Thaksin could contest a new election to return to the premiership after the technical stalemate (which had in fact been instigated by him in the first place) is cleared up.

Is it really all that simple? Is Thailand's proposed political reform (which was all the rage amid the political shambles only a few days ago) all about whether Thaksin will be allowed back into the top government post or not? Has the whole country suddenly suffered such a serious case of "deadlock fatigue" that we can't tell the difference between substance and gibberish, between genuine, constructive opinion and partisan trash?

The technical question at issue is: was the House dissolution called by Thaksin on February 24 legitimate? Even if the ruling is that it was a legal - albeit politically detestable - act, how does the country go about undoing the damage and chaos that followed?

On the other hand, if the court rules it was wrongful, guilt must be established and the man responsible for this whole fiasco brought to book. Thaksin cannot get away with simply claiming that despite the fact he was standing on shaky ground - given the flawed reasons he gave and serious unfounded charges he piled on those who opposed his autocratic rule - he had a right to call a new election.

Would it be possible for us to return to square one and pretend nothing ever happened? Could anyone of sane mind within the Thai Rak Thai Party claim that a court ruling abrogating the April 2 election exonerated Thaksin from any responsibility for plunging the country into its worst constitutional crisis?

Before we can even start talking about starting all over again, any attempt to move forward will have to deal squarely with the serious question of a genuine political overhaul. And real reform does not mean only making amendments to those clauses that are related to ballot-casting and MP qualifications; truly democratic change will have to come in the form of ensuring broad-based public participation, the creation of a workable civil society and effective checks and balances.

After all is said and done, the real question is not whether Thaksin will stage a comeback. That, if Thai democracy actually does take root, should be irrelevant.

What really counts is whether the Thai public would allow this kind of autocratic rule - disguised as electioneering, cloaked in the "democracy" label and wrapped in money politics - to rear its ugly head once again.

Suthichai Yoon