How do we get there? First, the people will only be able to be "stronger" than the chief executive if freedom of expression is firmly guaranteed under the new charter. The last constitution did provide that guarantee, however the "Thaksin regime" somehow managed to circumvent it by resorting to personal browbeating, unofficial coercion, financial co-opting, threats to pull advertising, and open, intimidating and expensive libel suits.

The absence of organic laws to specify what constituted a "threat to press freedom" also contributed to the violation of the public's basic right to express disagreement with the powers-that-be. With that in mind, the constitution drafters will have to leave no stone unturned to make sure that participatory democracy is entrenched in the new charter to thwart any possibility of a "strong and irresponsible prime minister" usurping the powers of the man on the street, as was the case under Thaksin Shinawatra.

Organic laws will also have to be enacted to replace the current obsolete laws related to the print media, broadcasting laws and laws and regulations governing community radio and television outlets. Unless a genuine blueprint for media reforms is put into place - including the establishment of a truly independent "public broadcasting service", that no government can command and control - any claims about a "new era" of post-coup Thai politics would be nothing more than empty talk.

If politics isn't going to be confined to just a few thousand politicians exploiting the election game in a vicious cycle, the constitution writers will have to dramatically change their mindsets. The oft-cited refrain that a constitution is only as good as its "users" underscores the narrow notion that these "users" are exclusively a bunch of office seekers in political circles. Nothing could be further from the truth. The constitution should in fact serve as the most important document at the public's disposal to protect them from those who would exploit the charter. The real "users" of the charter therefore should be the majority of Thai citizens, not a handful of politicians in the "inner circle".

In practice, such a guarantee would only be enforceable if the new constitution expands on clauses that protect the rights of local communities and upholds the public's role in a participatory democracy.

What that means in effect is that this particular sector must be given full play in the new scheme of things - not just an afterthought or postscript, or a "sidebar", as we call an add-on news item in the newsroom.

A real revolutionary approach towards creating a truly people-based democratic system - which would go a long way toward preventing the return of the likes of Thaksin and thwart any temptation for "knights on white horses" to come to the nation's rescue - would be to increase and expand the public's role in the law-making process, both in vital legal and budgetary matters.

Decentralisation of administrative power has been a popular policy point for all politicians seeking votes from local villagers. Thaksin even used that theme as the platform to launch his highly dangerous and exploitative populist policy.

Of course, it was all a farce. What he trumpeted as "decentralisation" was in fact the "centralisation" of power for himself as premier.

It was a subtle, crafty plot for him to spend taxpayers' money to enhance his personal popularity at the expense of the long-term immunity and sustainability of the local communities.

The charter writers will have to return the concept of "decentralisation" to its actual meaning, and emphasise its real value. In other words, what the new constitution should provide is a sense of pride and independence for the average Thai citizen, who knows deep in his heart that this new set of rules will make him prouder and stronger as an individuals and more powerful as part of an informed, caring and engaged society.

Suthichai Yoon

The Nation