Preparations for the new election are moving ahead like a glacier. And the country waits anxiously to find out if the outcome of another ballot will resolve the political crisis.

But some politicians say the new poll organisers -due to have their first meeting today - should take their time and not rush to stage a ballot. Indeed, the suspense looks likely to persist for a few more months until the new commissioners get a grip on their jobs.

Analysts have speculated that the new poll may be held on Nov 26, instead of the original date of October 15, to allow the new EC to undertake necessary preparations.

But some politicians, such as Pracharaj Party leader Snoh Thienthong, have said the credibility of the electoral process should be shored up before scheduling the poll early next year.

Several issues are expected to dominate the debate about the election. The commission will elect a chairman by a peer vote. It will then appoint a secretary-general and revamp many key positions in order to ensure non-partisanship.

The five commissioners then face the daunting prospect of putting their own house in order while reining-in political parties to comply with the rules for campaigning. If the five can beat the odds and organise a free and fair ballot, then the next and more troubling question is whether the political system can be put back on track.

Signs are not good that a fair and balanced political set-up will emerge anytime soon. Political leaders say it could take at least 18 months to amend the Constitution.

The most pressing job for the next government is to form an independent panel to rewrite the charter and usher in further political reform. Rival camps are expected to push for their reform agendas and fight off alternate proposals. They have already braced themselves for what could be an uncompromising struggle - either their way or no way at all.

The situation is likely to be fractious and volatile for the rest of the year and possibly well into 2007 as well. The upcoming election will prop up the new government but uncertainty is not likely to dissipate in the foreseeable future.

A cascade of events converged to cripple Thailand's thriving democracy, but the bottom line is: What constitutes a desirable, democratic leadership, with the monarch as head of state?

The debate on leadership style gripped the nation even before the peaceful 1927 revolution to switch from an absolute monarchy to a popular democracy. Sadly, Thai politicians and the ruling elite appear unable to forge a consensus or a sustainable compromise.

In the bickering that triggered the crisis, the incumbent government leader - "You-Know-Who" - has been accused of using populist policies to sedate the rural and grassroots voters and "buy" control of the country to amass ill-gotten wealth. In the process of consolidating power, he destroyed most checks and balances in order to ensure victory at the polls, his many critics say.

Opposition politicians and the ruling elite have rendered judgement that Thai democratic rule will be in peril if You-Know-Who - seen as a tyrant disguised as an elected leader - is allowed to return to power.

They have formed a united front to dethrone him by various means. This has ranged from friendly persuasion and calls for a conscientious act of self-sacrifice to street protests and threatening demands. All have been futile up to now.

In his defence, You-Know-Who has invoked the "numbers game", in which he reminds opponents of the number of popular votes he gained when elected, as a shield to repel democracy advocates.

The harder his opponents try to heave him out of office, the more You-Know-Who tightens his grip at the government's helm.

Anti-government campaigners hope for the survival of democracy by removing a "rogue" leader. But You-Know-Who has felt compelled to remain in power to ensure his own survival. Retreat without a rearguard action could be tantamount to throwing himself to the wolves.

With the elite and You-Know-Who stuck in their own traps, the debate on leadership could rage on without conclusion. It's ironic that everyone seems to realise the house is on fire but no one knows how to put it out. 

Avudh Panananda

The Nation