Rival sides appear to rely on selective memories to ramble on over the issue of elected vs non-elected prime ministers, and their debate is degenerating into a storm in a teacup.

If the debate is to be meaningful, both camps should spell out the facts and their underlying concerns so as to enable an informed judgement by the public. Partial arguments will likely lead to a frenzied vote for the referendum on draft constitution.

Thailand is at an important juncture to repair its political system. Society needs to act in a cool and calm manner in order to overcome social divisions and political flaws.

For proponents of the argument for a non-elected prime minister, their timing to bring up the issue is off - and the substance of the debate is lacklustre at best.

Three of the country's longest-serving constitutions were enacted in 1932, 1978 and 1997. Only the latest-suspended charter had a specific provision for the prime minister to be appointed from among the members of Parliament.

The country had seen elected and non-elected prime ministers and both types of government leaders had their strengths and weaknesses in equal measure. Coups happened regardless of how a prime minister came to power.

In the Thai experience, past collapses in democratic rule were never about the source of prime ministerial mandate but a deadlock triggered by fractious politics.

Constitution Drafting Committee chairman Prasong Soonsiri chose a bad time to push for the idea of non-elected prime minister. His 35 charter writers have virtually reached their limits to revamp the political system and the added issue might break their back.

Although Prasong argued for the selection of prime ministerial candidates beyond the House as an option to resolve an unforeseen crisis, this appears to be a moot point in light of what happened in the final months of the Thaksin Shinawatra regime.

Thaksin clung to his premiership even though there were so many elected politicians within and outside his ruling party to replace him and thwart the crisis.

If he could not be heaved out of office by an elected successor, then it is hopeless to speculate about a non-elected replacement. In modern Thai history, only a handful of elected and non-elected heads of government managed a smooth transition of power.

If his memory is intact, Prasong should remember that he was the main crusader against non-elected premier Suchinda Klaprayoon before the Black May, 1992 incident.

So what is the reason for Prasong's about-face?

The argument about having the option of a non-elected prime minister in a time of crisis is just a pretext. The underlying reason is the distrust of politicians. Thai elites still see the majority of politicians mired in money politics and electioneering.

Stung by Thaksin's authoritarian leadership, Prasong and the elites are yearning to turn the wheel of history back to the "good old days" of Prem Tinsulanonda's administration.

The question is whether society should - or could - travel back to the past.

Even if the country manages once again to revive the era of half-baked democracy, another deeper question is about the long-term impact on democratic institutions like political parties.

If partisan politics is not allowed to blossom to maturity, democratic rule in Thailand might not have a future.

It is unfortunate that democracy advocates are offering a shallow argument to counter the idea of a non-elected prime minister. They have invoked the Black May incident to haunt the public instead of giving an in-depth explanation on reshaping the political landscape.

The 1992 bloodshed was not about the issue of a non-elected premiership but the opposition against junta leader Suchinda who staged a back-door grab for control of an elected government.

In the planned referendum, voters deserve to know how and why the new constitution can advance democratic rule. And they should not be short-changed by the frenzy over elected vs non-elected prime minister.

Avudh Panananda

The Nation