Yes, any idea has pros and cons. But with lingering suspicion that the interim leadership is plotting a scheme to extend its reign, directly or indirectly, the non-elected prime minister idea will only harm Thailand. It will give the enemies of the interim leadership more ammunition than they already have. It will convert those who were sceptical of the September 19 coup into all-out crusaders against it, and the neutral will join them. Supporters of the coup will go into hiding.

The interim leadership will be alienated. Its proclaimed promise to bring about national reconciliation will fall flat. But these are the least of the problems. The controversial proposal has the potential to take our reeling, conflict-battered and divided nation to the brink.

This is definitely not the time to take such a great risk. Two years of polarised politics - corruption or coup, Thaksin or Surayud, capitalism or sufficiency economy - have left the country exhausted and vulnerable. This particular issue could easily tip the scales with its unpredictable consequences. Warnings of "bloodshed" must be heeded, because the doom merchants have history on their side.

The May 1992 bloodbath happened because of the same fears and suspicions over the motives of the military strongmen. Their coup a year earlier had been condoned, but then the public began to question the intent of the junta, who didn't help themselves as they gave out one signal after another that they wanted to hold on to power.

It took years for the wounds of 1992 to heal, and this despite the fact that Thailand then was not as divided as it is today. The CDA has the responsibility to ensure a safe return to democracy. Reviving the idea of a non-elected prime minister will contravene that responsibility. In one instant, the CDA members could easily turn from being supposed saviours to destroyers.

It's disheartening, though not surprising, that one of the advocates of the proposal is Prasong Soonsiri, chairman of the CDA's drafting committee. He spoke in defence of the idea again on Friday and his logic confirmed why he was so opposed when he ran for the CDA presidency or when he was named the drafting panel's head. Thailand, he said, would have had Somboon Rahong as prime minister instead of Anand Panyarachun had the then charter prohibited an outsider from taking the nation's helm.

Prasong and the like claim that opening the window for a non-elected leader will help Thailand break away from the vicious circle of corrupt elected leaders, public disillusionment, coups and discarded constitutions. They are getting it all wrong. Of course, the junta and the interim government took over from a flawed democracy, but the charter drafters must address the real flaws, which are there for all to see. Thailand's present crisis was not caused by the fact that Thaksin came from an election; it is the result of the rule of law and constitutional wills being breached. There is no guarantee that a non-elected prime minister will not do as Thaksin did and become corrupt himself. Prasong's logic will only support charges that the current interim rulers do not actually want to restore democracy, because they disdain its core principles.

Even if the drafters are sincere, reviving the proposal will be the most unwise political move in Thailand's modern history. And to make that move at a time when mistrust is growing and the popularity of the interim rulers is plunging will border on insanity. The CDA must regroup and think hard about its role and responsibility, because from the signs emerging from the assembly so far, Thaksin, if he's really plotting a return, doesn't need to send a Trojan Horse at all.