Debate over whether the prime minister should be directly elected or appointed has become a hot topic even before drafting the new constitution kicks off.

The fact this issue has become the subject of heated debate early on makes one wonder whether the country has come to a cross-roads - although some may describe such a step as a U-turn.

The question boils down to whether conservative bureaucrats or politicians should lead the country. Political scientist Sukhum Nuansakul has predicted that if bureaucrats muster greater voice in drafting the constitution than politicians, there is a greater chance of the PM being appointed, not elected.

With the political havoc that plunged the country deep into crisis this year and the divisions caused by politicians like Thaksin Shinawatra and his cronies, it is little wonder why many have lost faith and hope in politicians, including respected social critic Dr Prawase Wasi, who used to support the idea of politicians having a strong power-base.

Prawase was among those who yearned for a system that created a strong party system. The Thai Rak Thai Party was actually the fruit of that architecture. Like it or not, the by-product of the strong party was Thaksin, who garnered massive power in recent years.

So, if the 1997 constitution successfully brought about a strong government led by politicians, can the drafters rewrite another constitution that allows senior bureaucrats to lead the country?

We can always come up with excuses or reasons that the country is not ready to implement fully-fledged Western style democracy.

If that is the case, when people go to vote in the referendum, one of the biggest political decisions for them to choose may be if they want the ship of state steered by bureaucrats - or politicians.

The debate started after one of the prospective constitution drafters Dr Amorn Chandrasomboon, dropped a bombshell, by suggesting the next prime minister be selected by a majority vote in parliament - but he or she didn't have to come from the ranks of elected MPs.

The first public reaction to the conservative camp's proposal was a survey by Bangkok Pollster, which came out early last week. More than half (nearly 60 per cent) of 1,370 respondents from Bangkok and major provinces across the country opposed the proposal to have an elected premier - and only 21 per cent supported the idea.

By the end of the week the balance looked likely to sway towards the bureaucrats when Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont announced that the government would free bureaucrats from the tight control of politicians. Power would be restored to senior bureaucrats, because, under Thaksin, those who refused to kow-tow to politicians were bullied and shifted elsewhere.

It was no surprise that most respondents to the survey did not sway towards the bureaucrats. Many people still remember how the country moved at a snail's pace in terms of "getting things done," when we were led by weak coalition governments, which, one after another, allowed bureaucrats to service people at their own pace.

While many people have lost faith in the constitution and believe that corrupt politicians will find a way to abuse their power, no matter how perfect the constitution is, some believe otherwise.

Some argue the 1997 charter, though seen as the most democratic, still had flaws and that's why it failed to stem corruption and check politicians.

Academic Somyos Chuathai is among this group. He is confident that he and other academics can create a better constitution with fewer loopholes and a good check and balance system.

Prawase believes that having three pillars of power - the government, the House (Parliament) and the courts - is not enough to balance each other's power. The country needs at least five or six pillars, and he proposes that one of these additional pillars should be the bureaucrats.

He believes the bureaucrats should be given more power and that it should harder for politicians to replace them.

So, now, it seems, society is split again, over whether we should be led by strong politicians or more powerful bureaucrats.

Like it or not, the country faces this potential divisive issue. But the way to prevent this rift from turning to a crisis is to let the people decide their own future - maybe in a referendum - to see whether they accept a constitution with this "new style of democracy".

Phochana Phichitsiri

The Nation