Both camps in Thai politics are quick to say the other violates the rules

The term "rule of law" was first used by opponents of Thaksin Shinawatra to attack what they portrayed as his weakest point. Under Thaksin, they and his critics said, Thailand's democracy was never complete because the rule of law was always selectively enforced or ignored totally. The controversial Ratchadaphisek land case is one of many examples shown to expose Thaksin as getting carried away with power with little or no regards of what can or cannot legally be done.

For some time now, the Thaksin camp has tried to turn the table on its rivals by using the same term. The "rule of law" has been abused, it said, to punish the ousted leader, his political associates and his supporters while "the others" have escaped scot-free. Some of the examples are the dissolution of the Thai Rak Thai and People Power parties, Samak Sundaravej's downfall as a result of his TV cooking show, the never-ending legal process against the yellow shirts and the leniency shown toward the Democrats in their party dissolution cases.

Maybe now is too late to discuss the "who did it first?" question. What deserves great attention is the Yingluck government's strong push to reform the justice system. The formation of the Commission on the Rule of Law with legal veteran Ukrit Mongkolnavin as its head signifies an intention to go all the way with justice reform. The government's move has predictably triggered negative reaction, with the Democrats sounding an alarm that the independence of the judiciary, one of the three key pillars of Thailand's political system, could be at stake.

Negative speculation has forced Professor Ukrit to issue statements denying that his commission would seek ways to compromise the monarchy's powers or assert political control over independent organisations. The setting up of his commission has made people worry about the future of such institutions as the Constitution Court, the Administrative Court or the National Counter Corruption Commission. In his statements, Ukrit suggested his panel would only conduct research and studies on the big picture and would not do anything to benefit any particular group or people.

For now, Ukrit should be given the benefit of the doubt. The professor, however, should acknowledge that Thailand's problems did not come from a poor justice system. In other words, our problems are mostly political, not legal. It's politicians who interfered with the checks and balances, and when the checks and balances are weakened, one thing can lead to another.

The likes of the Constitution Court, the Election Commission and the National Counter Corruption Commission came into existence because of the now-defunct 1997 charter, which the Thaksin camp apparently wanted so much to revive. Those institutions briefly formed a formidable barrier against political abuse and corruption. The Election Commission, for example, had the courage to disqualify countless big-name election candidates, while the Constitution Court fearlessly banned one of the most powerful politicians of the time, Sanan Kachornprasart. It's not a coincidence that Thailand's political crisis began when these independent bodies started to be weakened.

Ukrit has to find out what Thailand really needs. The mechanism is already there, albeit weakened and easily manipulated. The laws are already there, albeit often ignored or used with discrimination. The professor will have to acknowledge that no matter how good a legal system is, it means nothing if the people are bad. He must consider the possibility that changing the laws or the entire system may just send Thai politicians scrambling for new ways of abuse.

Thailand's problem lies with enforcement of justice, something that's always subject to political interference. If Samak's cooking show doom was harsh, Thaksin's acquittal in the share concealment case was equally absurd. Did Samak violate the laws? His offence may have been so small he overlooked it. Can the same be said for Thaksin when he allegedly violated the laws by using nominees to hide his shares and by allowing his wife to buy a piece of state-auctioned land?

Ukrit will have to take all these into account, as well as all the controversial rulings issued post-Thaksin. We tend to think that any system that can be abused left and right can't be good. Another way Ukrit can look at it, however, is that "left" and "right" are both bad and it may have nothing to do with the system.