Millions of Thai fans of English football were shocked when popular striker Wayne Rooney received a red card in England's World Cup quarter-final against Portugal. They complained about harsh punishment, despite conceding Rooney's foul was a deliberate act.

And over the next few months, Thailand's political football match is likely to see a few red cards issued by the Constitution Court that may shatter the careers of political titans and discourage their supporters.

But the penalties are deemed necessary to allow the game to move on. No footballers are bigger than the game. Likewise, no politicians are indispensable when the country's survival is at stake. After months of political turmoil, the high court is expected to rule on the fate of the ruling Thai Rak Thai Party and opposition Democrats.

The major parties face charges of electoral fraud punishable by dissolution, although the allegedly offences are very different.

The political crisis faces a test of how to dispense justice on a ruling party that allegedly committed a foul on democratic rule and an opposition party allegedly involved in foul play while trying to safeguard democracy.

For the Caretaker Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, his political sin is his relentless drive to consolidate power at the expense of the system's checks and balances.

Thaksin's foes see him as a despot while his supporters adore his populist policies. He has mounted a series of ploys for his comeback. In the latest, his party engineered for the Election Commission, seen as its proxy, to target the Democrat Party for dissolution.

In the England-Portugal match, Rooney committed the foul and later his fans tried to punish Portuguese winger Cristiano Ronaldo for accusing him. In the Thai political landscape, Democrat leader Abhisit Vejjajiva is experiencing a similar ordeal to Ronaldo. He has cried foul against Thaksin and exposed his party to the risk of political demise.

Thaksin's survival strategy appears to be refusing to go down before sinking the entire ship. If the parliamentary system is to function, the pending judicial review will have to address how to suspend or remove players who are catalysts for the crisis. Although the court battle will centre on possibly disbanding of the major parties, the high court has the discretion to punish individuals and leave their parties intact. Legal pundits point out that dissolution might be counter-productive and a futile exercise.

Following dissolution, opposing politicians might re-list the names of their old parties and resume business, including the unresolved rivalry, as if nothing had happened. Certain executives may face a five-year ban from running another party, but this will not deter them from remaining behind the scenes.

The central figure in the turmoil is Thaksin. He has the right to run for office and form a government but is so controversial in flaunting his power that his rule might lead to perilous consequences. If the high court refuses to penalise him, the crisis will be prolonged, with a popular leader elected but unable to rule effectively.

Evidence of the bankrolling of small parties to contest the April 2 election is incriminating and Thaksin's leadership is culpable for his party executives' involvement.

Charges against Abhisit and his party are unclear, as prosecutors have yet to complete their report. It is shocking but no surprise that the prosecution should decide to try the Democrats even before having come up with alleged violations.

The high court could face a public backlash if it fails to apportion blame to the Democrats - Thai Rak Thai supporters will not stand idle if Thaksin alone falls.

And, Democrat fans will take to the streets if Thaksin is let off the hook while Abhisit and his lieutenant Suthep Thaugsuban are punished for doing their jobs. The high court may have to send off the opposing party leaders to clear up the mess once and for all.

Avudh Panananda

The Nation