Members of the People’s Alliance for Democracy gather at the Democracy Monument in Bangkok during an anti-Thaksin rally last month.

Almost nine years after Thailand celebrated its first "People's Constitution", the country is reeling from a political crisis that seems to have hobbled the charter.

In 1997 the great hope was that the new Constitution would overcome the turbulent decades of military rule and create a new people's democracy. The reality today is far from reassuring.

Long-awaited political reforms, accepted by all sides of the conflict, are really about one man and one party: Thaksin Shinawatra and his Thai Rak Thai.

Thai Rak Thai secured an electoral landslide in January 2001 and that is when, as their critics and opponents recall, the trouble really started.

It's been a steady flow since then of nepotism, conflicts of interest, absolute control of the House, the excessive power of executive branch (particularly the prime minister), media suppression, interference in the Senate and the independent agencies scrutinising the government and manipulating the charter's rules on "silencing" rebellious party MPs.

Thaksin has taken "political leave" after winning the April 2 election but his opponents believe his legacy lives on and vow to end what they call the "Thaksin regime".

In other words, they want to ensure Thaksin and the Thai Rak Thai never return to power.

Here are some controversial constitutional amendments discussed recently in the post-Thaksin era.

Cancel the 90-day rule

This rule requires a House candidate to be a member of a political party for 90 days before an election. As the law requires the Election Commission to hold an election within 60 days of the House being dissolved, any MP who resigns from their party will be disqualified from standing again if the prime minister dissolves the House within a month of their departure.

The major factions in Thai Rak Thai dare not rise against Thaksin although they were sometimes unhappy with the prime minister. If a group moved to another party, Thaksin could dissolve the House to give them a "painful lesson".

Consequently, Thai Rak Thai MPs were often mute on controversial issues, some of which have allegedly boosted the wealth of Thaksin's family. It is believed this will weaken the Thai Rak Thai and make other apparently invincible successors less likely.

Reduce the number of MPs needed to censure the PM

In Thaksin's five years in power he was "untouched" by the opposition although scandals and conflicts of interest have loomed over his administration. As launching a no-confidence debate needs the support of 200 of the 500 MPs, Thaksin was safe as long as Thai Rak Thai controlled more than 300 seats.

Critics and the opposition argue that only 100 MPs should be needed to censure the prime minister - the same as a minister. With this reduced requirement, the prime minister could be more vulnerable.

Prime ministers should serve no more than two House terms

Thaksin "scared" a large chunk of the nation when he claimed on several occasions that he had the best chance of ruling the country for at least 20 years.

Reduce the percentage for a party to win party-list seats

The election law requires a party to win at least 5 per cent of the party-list voter turnout to win party-list seats.

In the 2005 poll, Mahachon won more than 1.3 million votes nationwide - slightly below 5 per cent as the turnout was 31 million and it failed to win a single one of the 100 party-list seats. The result led to only three parties having party-list MPs, with Thai Rak Thai taking 67.

Observers were sympathetic to Mahachon as its votes were enough to get representatives into the House. They believe the higher the percentage level; the more party-list seats Thai Rak Thai will win.

A senator should not have any family ties with ministers, MPs or political parties

When a senator shares a bed with a minister, the checks and balances start to crumble. How could a wife scrutinise her husband if he allegedly pockets hundreds of millions of baht from the state's coffers?

Moreover, the Senate will select members of independent agencies, which are supposed to examine the government. Senators who have close relations with people in the administration tend to protect their "clans" rather the public interest.

But worse is yet to come.

The Senate election tomorrow is expected to end up with spouses, siblings and "big party's nominees" sitting in the Upper House. Reformers will see this as a serious threat to national stability.

Weerayut Chokchaimadon

The Nation