Thailand's Constitutional Court has ruled the February general elections invalid, which pushed the heated political squabble between anti-Thaksin Shinawatra, the controversial exiled leader, and pro-Shinawatra groups back to square one. Three months of chaos has caused deaths, casualties and huge economic losses. There is still no sign of compromise between the sides, and the society is seeing even more social division and conflicts.

Both the middle-income "Yellow Shirts" and the grass-roots "Red Shirts" are preparing for stronger street politics campaigns, trying to take the initiative in a new round of political confrontation.

This eight-year political mess in Thailand has mainly been caused by the lack of a middle power that could act as a lever to balance both sides.

The royal family played this role in Thailand's political dynamics from the 1970s to 1990s, during which time the country was able to maintain a generally peaceful state. But the constitutional monarchy and the aging of the incumbent king have greatly limited the influence of the royal family.

What's more, as Thailand has undergone a political transformation, the royalists have moved from the central-right to the ultra-right, a shift that makes them less of a crux in Thailand's political pattern.

Grave problems such as economic stagnation, huge income disparities and regional polarizations are pushing the Thai government to reconsider its development path.

The left wing, composed of the new rising capital groups and the grass roots, insists on Shinawatra's innovative economic path, while the traditional industrial groups and urban middle-income people oppose the path and advocate King Bhumibol Adulyadej's "conservative sufficiency" economic model.

Without the intervention of a middle power, such a divergence would unlikely lead to a compromise between both sides. But one sign worth noting is that Thailand's judicial branch, which used to keep its distance from political conflicts, has been more attached to politics in recent years, and could replace the royalists as a new lever in the political arena.

In the ongoing confrontation, the judicial branch has clarified its position as an independent force, and maneuvered the political situation.

At the beginning of the February general elections, anti-Shinawatra groups launched massive street protests against the caretaker government, pushing the confrontation to the verge of bloodshed. The court rejected the oppositions' plead to annul the elections, which eased the tensions.

After that, the court ruled that the government has right to declare state of emergency, and demanded that the military not suppress the opposition by force.

The crisis was controlled well, and a conflict was avoided. Now, the ruling by the court is a new move to break the deadlock and calls for political consultation between both sides.

The judiciary could offer new opportunities for Thailand to reach a political compromise. But it is not a panacea as challenges still remain ahead.

First, the abuse of jurisdiction has greatly jeopardized the authority and credibility of Thailand's judicial system. Thailand is even being criticized as going through a political coup driven by the judiciary.

And a simple balance between left and right cannot control the situation. The judicial branch must make sure that both sides agree to maintain divergence, seek more common ground, and orient their moves toward the well-being of Thai populace so they can gain support from the majority of the people.

Any attempt to avoid the escalation of disputes at the cost of economic growth and the improvement of people's livelihood might work for a short period, but would not be helpful to address the fundamental problem of social development.

The author is an associate research fellow at the National Institute of International Strategy, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. opinion@globaltimes.com.cn