On Sunday, Thai voters go to the polls for the first time since the coup of September 2006. The election represents a key turning point in the troubled history of Thai democracy.
The vote is not just about the composition of the next government there is a much deeper struggle about the nature of political authority going on.
In September 2006, telecommunications tycoon turned populist prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra was removed from office in a military coup. A political crisis had been building for months and the armed forces finally took charge, ripping up the democratic constitution and condemning Thaksin to a life in exile. The soldiers who came on to the streets were careful to pledge their loyalty to the king, tying royally auspicious yellow ribbons around the barrels of their guns.
This display of loyalty was a savvy political move.
Any guidebook will tell you that King Bhumibol Adulyadej is considered above reproach by many in Thai society. In Thailand, any criticism of the king risks stern words or even a stint behind bars. He is protected by law, and by the incessant royalist pulse of public life.
In recent times this pulse has been quickening. In December 2006 the king celebrated 60 years on the throne. He is the world's longest reigning monarch. And just two weeks ago, on December 5, he celebrated his 80th birthday.
These impressive milestones were punctuated by grand shows of loyalty and reverence throughout the country. On the evening of Bhumibol's birthday many of Thailand's 65million people donned yellow shirts and sang his praises at carefully choreographed public events.
But there have been some unwelcome guests in the midst of these birthday celebrations politicians vying for votes. The royalist atmosphere of national unity has been punctured by Thailand's distinctively virulent brand of electoral politics.
After more than a year of policy impasse, lacklustre economic performance and constitutional re-engineering, the generals have declared that Thailand is ready for a national election. That election pits the People Power Party, which is widely seen as a proxy for the exiled prime minister, against the Democrat Party, the main opposition party during the Thaksin era.
It will be difficult for either of these parties to win enough seats to govern in its own right. The People Power Party will probably gain the most seats and may be able to form government with one or two of Thailand's motley collection of minor parties.
On the other hand the Democrat Party, even if it wins fewer seats than People Power, may still stitch together a government with several coalition partners. Either way there will be a lot of horse-trading after the election and a rather unstable coalition government appears likely.
Indeed many commentators suggest that this instability was programmed into the new post-coup constitution in an attempt to avoid the single-party dominance that characterised Thaksin's rule.
But this election is not just a contest between political parties. There is a much more deep-seated battle about the nature of political authority in Thailand.
On one side, there are those that argue ultimate political authority lies with the electorate and is expressed by their elected representatives in Parliament.
In the current political climate this view is symbolised by the exiled Thaksin and his proxy party. The name of the party, People Power, is no accident and it is campaigning on a populist platform of universal health care and robust government support for farmers. But there are others, like those who staged the 2006 coup, who believe that supreme political judgment is held by the king and by his loyal servants in the military, the bureaucracy and the judiciary.
They are keen to dismiss the policies of People Power as crude pandering to electoral desires, pork-barrelling and even outright vote buying. They contrast Thaksin's brash self-interest with the humility and generosity of the king.
The military Government, reliant on the king's cultural force for its legitimacy, has attempted to amplify the contrast between the deceit and duplicity of elected politicians and the morality of the palace and its backers. No expense has been spared in promoting royal symbolism and the wearing of the royal yellow has been made virtually compulsory in many official contexts.
The royalists are suspicious of all elected politicians. Nonetheless, the Democrats, lead by an Eton- and Oxford-educated cleanskin, are their best hope for a political system that retains its yellow hue.
But there are clouds on the royal horizon and the celebrations of the king's 80th birthday were tinged with anxiety. The king's recent stint in hospital provided an opportunity for an outpouring of affection, but it also highlighted the unresolved issue of the royal succession.
The crown prince, Prince Vajiralongkorn, has a chequered reputation and is highly unlikely to command the same level of respect as his father. Bangkok high society swirls with rumours about his business dealings, private life and health. Not surprisingly, many in Thailand consider the king's second daughter, Princess Sirindhorn, a better choice. She is commonly referred to as "Princess Angel" and, as a tireless promoter of royal charity, would be a more appropriate custodian of the king's carefully cultivated moral legitimacy.
According to some analysts, the 2006 coup was, in essence, an effort to guarantee the royalist elite a pre-eminent role in "making" the next monarch. Thaksin was getting too popular, too close to some within the royal household, and perhaps too likely to influence the succession. His economic assertiveness may also have challenged the royal inheritance.
By one recent account the king is the world's richest royal with the assets of the Crown Property Bureau estimated at $US33billion ($A38.4billion). Moral legitimacy is clearly not all that is at stake.
Of course the royal family is not standing for election on Sunday. And most voters, regardless of the party they support, would have no hesitation in declaring their affection for the monarch. But a strong electoral showing by Thaksin's proxy party will be widely read as a rejection of the view that political life should be controlled by Thailand's royalist elite. The royal stakes are high.
Andrew Walker is an anthropologist at the Australian National University. Nicholas Farrelly is a Rhodes scholar at Oxford University. They cofounded New Mandala, a website that provides ongoing commentary on South-East Asian affairs. New Mandala will provide live coverage of the Thai election from 6pm on Sunday.