May 30 is slated to be a day of judgement for many politicians and may be the start of a new political era.

The Constitution Tribunal is poised to hand down two landmark rulings involving the former ruling Thai Rak Thai Party and the former opposition Democrat Party.

The rival parties and three small parties that allegedly acted as accomplices are fighting two separate cases of electoral fraud stemming from the botched ballot in April last year.

A key charge against Thai Rak Thai concerns the bankrolling of two small parties to join the race as a prop to overcome a voting rule which requires a single candidate running unopposed to garner more than 20 per cent of registered voters to secure victory.

An auxiliary charge centres on the alleged tampering with party membership records.

The Democrats, meanwhile, were charged with coercing a small party to frame Thai Rak Thai for bankrolling its candidates.

If convicted, the two parties face a maximum penalty of dissolution and a ban for executives from holding office for five years.

A political landscape without these two popular parties is so drastic and unprecedented a change that no one has attempted to fathom the consequences.

Yet it is a possibility that one or both parties might not be around as we know them after this month.

Political jitters have heightened because this is the first time prosecutors have invoked provisions on campaign-related fraud to penalise parties. Past litigation singled out individual candidates or executives only.

Since the three small parties appear to be puppets of the two major parties and wield no tangible political impact, the public is more eager to learn the fate of the big two.

According to legal pundits, the two cases could produce a number of scenarios. As there are no legal precedents, tribunal judges and concerned parties are treading an uncharted course to come up with a lesson that will hopefully improve politics.

In the prevailing fractious political climate, the rulings are unlikely to win kudos and judges might be hoping their opinions will not further inflame the atmosphere.

In one scenario, the tribunal might acquit both parties, cancelling all charges and rebuttals and ushering the situation back to square one. This is possible but highly improbable if prosecution evidence and defence rebuttals are any indication.

The next scenario is for Thai Rak Thai and its executives to face a guilty verdict with full or partial punishment. The tribunal could exercise its judicial discretion to penalise the party, a selected number of executives or the party and its entire executive board.

The prosecution evidence linking the former ruling party to the money trail in bank accounts of two small parties' candidates should be sufficient to secure conviction.

A guilty verdict in the Thai Rak Thai case is possible - indeed, highly probable.

The tribunal might grant leniency in its sentencing, however. Prosecution evidence and defence rebuttals have indicated that not all party executives were aware of any wrongdoing. The party may escape punishment but individual executives could be held accountable.

Only two Thai Rak Thai executives, Thamarak Isarangura and Pongsak Ruktapongpisal, were key players in the case. The two are known as henchmen of ousted premier Thaksin Shinawatra.

A key question relating to sentencing is whether the judges would penalise Thaksin for his culpability in any fraud.

Inside the courtroom, the ousted premier made a strong argument distancing himself from his henchmen. Outside, he has kept close ties with them. Pongsak recently helped to install him as president of the Professional Golf Association of Thailand.

Another scenario is for the Democrats to win a favourable verdict. This is a real possibility because charges relating to the framing of Thai Rak Thai are flimsy and rely on individual accusations without hard evidence.

In the final scenario, the tribunal might find the Democrats guilty of fraud. This could happen because of damning statements by prosecution witnesses who pointed their finger at Democrat secretary-general Suthep Thaugsuban.

Should the judges rule against the Democrats, they might leave the oldest political party intact and choose to penalise individual executives such as Suthep.

The charges against the Democrats are not as severe as those levelled against the former ruling party.

The key question in every Democrat's mind is whether any punishment would include party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva.

Whatever the outcome of the court battle, some political titans will probably be kicked off the playing field and the political landscape will never be the same again.

Avudh Panananda

The Nation