The most important question is not whether the four members of the controversial Election Commission (EC) headed by Police Lt-General Vasana Puemlarp should resign. Or if they did, under relentless pressure from a cross-section of society, how the country would handle the even more controversial process of naming a new panel.

Likewise, the most crucial issue is not even whether Thaksin Shinawatra could arbitrarily renege on his earlier pledge not to take up the premiership following the earlier scheduled election. Or whether he might declare a sensational return, claiming the right to be the Chosen One yet again.

Certainly, while the question of who will decide when the new election will take place and whether the 60-day campaign period (which is usually from House dissolution to snap election) would apply here is of great interest to many, that's no more than an academic exercise. After all is said and done, the real question does not even concern whether Thaksin's Thai Rak Thai Party would be so badly split (because if a new EC is to be picked, the 90-day clause binding all election candidates would cease to be a problem) that all bets are off in the upcoming poll anyway.

The central question, which should not be blurred by the overwhelming day-to-day happenings, remains: What does all this mean for the proposed second round of political reform?

If memory serves me correctly, only a few weeks ago, all the buzz was about how Thaksin was stepping aside from the political fuss, so an interim government could be formed after the April 2 election and a national non-partisan body set up to amend the Constitution, in order to launch a new round of political reform.

That was the grand act of reconciliation. That was the national mission. And that was what brought about the temporary truce between Thaksin and his growing number of hard-core opponents. That was the "clear understanding" between members of the establishment trying to protect the status quo and those struggling to put an end to the corrupt and omnipresent Thaksin regime.

Along with that came the "technical sideshows" related to the legality and legitimacy of the political process.

All sorts of "technical" questions were raised along the way: was Thaksin's February 24 decision to dissolve the House of Representatives and call the April 2 snap election a legitimate move in the first place? Was the very brief, by Thai standards, 37-day campaign period an aberration, a conspiracy? Was the EC in connivance with the ruling party? Did the ruling party hire small, previously non-existent parties to run in the poll, in order to justify its questionable victory?

The whole process appeared to have been halted while the deadlocks, controversies, wild accusations and behind-the-scenes manipulations were in full swing. His Majesty the King's wise words of two weeks ago broke that stalemate, and the Supreme, Administrative and Constitution courts promptly leaped into action. The judicial standstill may have been eased, but one technical resolution may bring about another technical twist.

But the real concern should be that the political mission to embark on genuine reform could be sidelined in the process. Even if some of the obvious legal hurdles are overcome and a new election held without too much of a legal challenge from the losers, missing from the current debate is:

Who's setting the stage for the formation of a broad-based panel to overhaul the Constitution? How do we ensure that the so-called political reform won't just cover amending a few clauses that were the concerns of some electioneers? How do we permanently and systematically implant participatory democracy all the way from the grass-roots level to the top? How do we set in motion the creation of a civil society that will maintain a proper system of checks and balances on political parties?

It's time for those who overwhelmingly cast a protest vote on April 2 to get down to work on the real issues. The ongoing fuss over procedural issues, over when and how the new election is to be held, is nothing but political pushing and shoving. And if you ask the really tough questions, you will discover that political posturing, after all, is the real threat to genuine democracy.

Suthichai Yoon