Political tensions have soared this week after firebrand Sondhi Limthongkul, leader of the now-defunct People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD), unveiled his plan to hold regular political activities starting next year.
The return of the PAD, known as the fountainhead of the conservative yellow shirt movement, raises fears of mass demonstrations and raucous street protests that could pave the way for the military to seize power again.
The PAD's mass demonstrations in 2006 and the subsequent mass protests in 2014 by the right-wing Muan Maha Prachachon for Reform Foundation (People's Democratic Reform Foundation) ended with military governments coming to power.
Almost two decades of street protest have brought us two junta governments and more charters.
It is a democratic right for the PAD -- or any political group -- to hold rallies. Yet, political activists should beware of creating conditions or radicalising their movements just to attack the government or advance their own political goals.
After all, a political movement will only be truly sustainable when it seeks democracy, justice, and transparency. Less than that, the movement and the political ideology it advocates will eventually lose their legitimacy.
Government and red-shirt leaders have scoffed at the PAD's reunion, ruling out any chance of mass political gatherings.
Instead of discounting opposing voices, the Pheu Thai-led government should nip conflict in the bud by clearing the air about controversial issues that the PAD is critical of, such as the 2001 MoU and the accusation that former PM Thaksin Shinawatra received privileges while serving his prison time on the 14th floor of the Police General Hospital (PGH).
The Pheu Thai Party and the red-shirt group should know that political protests start when the government lacks transparency and communicates poorly with the public and its opponents.
But that does not seem to be the case.
The Pheu Thai-led government has chosen to tap-dance around the issue of the 2001 MoU and zipped up about Thaksin's stay at the PGH.
Instead of educating the public and clearing the air, the government said critics were clueless and labelled them nationalists. Such defensive tactics never solve conflicts.
Parliament and independent institutes have also failed to use parliament's space to tackle such brewing conflicts. Instead of using the parliament to launch censure debates and inquiries, MPs and senators seem to focus on routine law-passing or just playing politics.
It must be said that the lead opposition party, the People's Party, has not shown the impressive vigilance they used in grilling the junta government. Firebrand MPs now seem to take a backseat in controversial issues like the 2001 MoU that Thaksin signed with the Cambodian government.
This only helps critics and the public perceive that the People's Party seems tongue-tied when it comes to the Pheu Thai-led government.
MPs and senators must use the parliamentary floor to ask the government about these controversies instead of letting groups seek justice through street protests. Our parliamentarians must launch special panels to examine these controversies and clear the air. People will not have to fight on the streets if their lawmakers find truth and justice for them.