The long-awaited general election has passed, but the schism that remains is so overwhelming that some political observers feel the country is more divided than ever before and fear it could result in violence.
The possible catalyst is the Future Forward Party (FFP) which defied the odds to capture 6.2 million votes nationwide and finish third in the March 24 race. Behind the FFP's poll victory was a campaign platform promising "a transition to new politics".
However, the formation of a coalition government cannot proceed until the Election Commission (EC) endorses the poll results on May 9.
Political tension intensified further after army commander Gen Apirat Kongsompong stepped out to attack "left-wing academics" in the FFP whom he said are plotting to change the constitutional monarchy system.
He has warned them not to bring the left-wing ideas from abroad and "act all pretentious".
In the meantime police summoned FFP leader Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit to hear charges over his alleged involvement in helping anti-coup demonstrators escape arrest in 2015.
He turned up to acknowledge the charges at Pathumwan police station yesterday amid an outpouring of support.
Supporters of the Pheu Thai Party and the FFP have labelled the army chief as an "extreme conservative".
This spat brings to mind the clash of ideologies during the turbulent 1970s and raises questions as to whether the current conflicts could result in violence.
Prof Chaiyan Chaiyaporn, a political science scholar at Chulalongkorn University, said politics is clearly divided into two extremes.
"There is a high possibility of violence but I don't think it will be a repeat of the Oct 6, 1976 event. This round of conflict is truly about ideologies. The FFP strongly rejects the military while the armed forces sees its ideology as threatening a change in the status quo," he said.
According to Prof Chaiyan, a transition to a stable and orderly democratic system must be based on compromise as extremist left-wing ideas have induced resistance from the conservative groups.
On the FFP's surprise ballot haul, the academic said it had campaigned hard with young people using attractive but abstract language mentioning "equality" or "making your own future". However, the party will find it hard to turn many these ideas into actual policies, he said.
He said to avoid violent confrontation and disorder, both the left and right must tone down their rhetoric as well as attempt to limit the military's role in politics.
Prof Chaiyan also warned that social media is being used widely to plant or promote ideologies and could be exploited to instigate an uprising.
HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF
Thailand is no stranger to street demonstrations calling for democracy and the overthrow of governments, and many have turned violent and killed or injured scores of people in the past.
In the Oct 14, 1973 uprising, hundreds of thousands of people and students took to the street to protest the dictatorial rule of Field Marshal Thanom Kittikachorn.
The situation turned violent as security forces launched a crackdown in which 77 were killed and more than 800 were wounded.
Three years, later in 1976, another protest erupted when student activists gathered to oppose the return of Field Marshal Thanom who fled the country after the Oct 14 political upheaval.
The student uprising was blamed on communist influence in the region and the crackdown resulted in at least 46 deaths.
Later came the "Black May" incident in 1992 when "middle class" people came out en masse to object to Gen Suchinda Kraprayoon's appointment as the prime minister.
The protest resulted in a bloody crackdown in which about 40 were killed and scores of others were injured amid the downfall of the military government.
In the aftermath, the country created the "people's charter" in 1997 which was drafted by a special assembly comprised of people from many walks of life.
It promoted public participation in politics, ensured access to government records, and guaranteed the people's right to propose laws and scrutinise political office holders.
However, after Thaksin Shinawatra and his Thai Rak Thai Party secured an election landslide in January 2001, the country plunged into another crisis. Thaksin stood accused of nepotism, conflicts of interest, media suppression and meddling with independent agencies.
All this gave rise to the "yellow-shirt" protest led by the People's Alliance for Democracy and resulted in the Sept 19, 2006, coup led by Gen Sonthi Boonyaratglin. The military government faced strong resistance from Thaksin's supporters who picked red as their symbolic colour and became the "red shirt" movement.
This yellow versus red colour-coded conflict broke out frequently between 2005 and 2014.
During the Democrat-led administration from 2008, the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship, or red shirts, declared a "phrai versus ammat" (commoners vs elites) war which led to a military crackdown during April-May of 2010 and scores of deaths and injuries among both civilians and troops.
The Yingluck administration, already under fire for irregularities in the rice-pledging scheme, faced a protest led by the People Democratic Reform Committee when an amnesty bill sponsored by the government was passed in the House of Representatives in the middle of a night in October 2013. After eight months of the protracted street protests, army chief Gen Prayut Chan-o-cha staged a coup in May 2014.
THE LATEST CHAPTER
Adul Khiewboriboon, chairman of a support group for relatives of victims of the 1992 Black May unrest, said violent confrontation is possible as both sides of the political spectrum are acting out hate.
Moreover, the divide is between the young generation and their elders this time, he said, apparently referring to the supporter base of the FFP.
In his opinion, the current situation is different as the political polarisation over the past eight years was about a power struggle, not a fight over political dogma.
"This time around I'm afraid it's not a political rally but mayhem, especially if those young people who voted for the FFP are accused of being not loyal to the institution," he said.
"These young people are easily provoked, unlike older generations who are ready to resolve conflicts through dialogue," he added.
According to Mr Adul, society can be roughly divided into three political generations: the older military and Gen Prayut's supporters; a middle generation loyal to Pheu Thai; and the FFP's base which has little or zero experience of past political strife.
While he said the election result should be respected, Mr Adul called on those involved to be wary of what they share online so their actions do not help fan violence or incite chaos.
Wittaya Kaewparadai, a former Democrat MP, meanwhile, sees the post-election situation differently.
He said the situation will not escalate into bloodshed because those parties which incite conflict and resort to violence will lose people's support.
Mr Wittaya said the army chief's warning against "anti-monarchists" will not lead to anything unless the left-wing group reacts.
On the issue of social media's role in influencing or manipulating public opinion, he said these tools tend to influence urbanites more than those in the countryside.
Panitan Wattanayagorn, Chulalongkorn University political scientist and an advisor to Deputy Prime Minister Prawit Wongsuwon, said tolerance is required after the March 24 election as it has unleashed a well of pent-up aggression.
He urged the voters and political parties alike to try to move together in achieving the common goal of a peaceful transition.