BANGKOK: In previous crises, Thailand has tended to look to its two most powerful institutions, the palace or the army, to cut the political Gordian knot.

Either or both might be able to provide some temporary respite to the current chaos, which has closed one of Asia’s biggest airports and brought the “Land of Smiles” to the brink of all-out bloodletting between pro- and anti-government gangs.

But neither King Bhumibol Adulyadej nor the military has the power to bridge the fundamental social divide that lies near the heart of the conflict – the yawning gulf between the bright lights of Bangkok and the upcountry rural masses.

“I don’t see any near-term resolution,” said Robert Broadfoot of the Political and Economic Risk Consultancy in Hong Kong. “There is a fundamental structural divide in Thai society. There is an urban-rural divide, and this is not just going to go away.”

Army chief Anupong Paochinda has repeatedly said he will not launch a coup, mindful of the 2006 putsch against former leader Thaksin Shinawatra that led rural voters, who benefited from his cheap healthcare and rural credit programmes, to return a pro-Thaksin administration in a 2007 election.

Anupong’s latest assertion came on Wednesday when he told a televised news conference: “I chose not to because it will not solve the problem.”

Instead, he laid out a compromise plan, telling the government to call another election and the People’s Alliance for Democrcy (PAD) protesters to leave Bangkok’s Suvarnabhumi airport and stop a six-month street campaign that is hitting the economy.It took less than an hour for both sides to toss his suggestions back in his face.

Although the army’s sympathies appear to lie more with the PAD than government – Anupong refused to take any action under emergency law in September against the PAD’s occupation of Government House – it is desperate not to appear one-sided.

“The military, caught in its own dilemma, can’t decide what role it should play at this crucial time when it is expected to be an honest broker,” the staunchly anti-government Nation newspaper said in an editorial.

Unlike in 2006, when Thaksin was out of the country and troops seized control without firing a shot, the army faces a pro-government group that has vowed to take up arms in defence of Prime Minister Somchai Wongsawat, Thaksin’s brother-in-law.

“There will be war for sure,” a senior member of the United front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD), also known as the Democratic Alliance Against Dictatorship (DAAD), told Reuters.

With Anupong trapped, there have inevitably been rumours of splits within the ranks and a putsch happening against his will, a far from outlandish proposition in a country that has witnessed 18 coups or attempted coups in 76 years of on-off democracy.So far, though, the top brass appear to be holding together.

Enter the king?

All of which leaves the king.

In 1992, the monarch intervened after the army killed dozens of pro-democracy demonstrators in Bangkok, summoning the prime minister, an army general and the leader of the protesters to Bangkok’s Grand Palace.

Although his words at the televised audience were balanced, the underlying message was clear and the prime minister stepped down three days later.

While the 80-year-old has lost none of his moral authority – many of Thailand’s 65 million people regard him as semi-divine – he has undergone several operations since 1992 and spent three weeks in hospital last year with a blood clot on the brain.

At the cremation of his elder sister this month he walked with a pronounced shuffle and looked frail, raising questions about his ability to stage another dramatic political intervention.

“My thinking is that the king is not part of the equation any more,” one Bangkok-based diplomat said.

However, the king’s annual address to the nation on the eve of his Dec 5 birthday may provide an opportunity for him to comment on the crisis.

There are also fears that the palace’s official political neutrality was badly compromised by Queen Sirikit’s alignment with the PAD, made explicit when she attended the funeral of a 28-year-old woman killed in clashes with riot police last month.—Reuters