The draft constitution has generated contentious debate, just as it should. Such vigorous public discourse is expected to provided valuable input for framers of the new charter and the Constitution Drafting Assembly when they sit down to make revisions and finalise the document before the people are asked to accept or reject it in a nationwide referendum to be held in late August or early September.

Several important issues have already been raised for discussion by the 12 ad-hoc oversight agencies assigned to implement political reforms, civil society groups, members of the general public, as well as political parties, which have been barred from political activity since last year's coup. Such a lively exchange of ideas is proof that democratic aspirations remain strong in this society.

Among the most controversial criticisms of the charter have been those made by members of the judiciary, academics, and politicians who have said that the draft constitution is unhelpful, wrong-headed or even anti-democratic.

Members of the judiciary have already registered their opposition to the Constitution Drafting Assembly's idea to get top judges involved in national politics by giving them extraordinary powers to select senators and appoint leaders of constitutionally-mandated independent organisations. They reasoned that such a move would not only compromise their independence, but also has the potential to undermine the system of checks and balances between the administrative, legislative and judicial branches of government, which underpin democracy.

Political scientists and public law experts have suggested that the first draft reflects the drafters' distrust of the ability of people to exercise their political judgement on how they should be governed. They expressed concern that the draft was designed to create a half-measured democracy under the rule of an elite few, led by the military and the bureaucrats. Meanwhile, former opposition parties, including the Democrat, Chat Thai and Mahachon parties, said the draft contained several articles and clauses that contradicted democratic principles. The draft, as it stands, would not only fail to restore full democracy but would also alienate the citizens by depriving them of their democratic rights to govern themselves through representative government.

They pointed out that in one provision, non-elected office holders are given sweeping powers to override elected politicians, while in another, framers of the draft constitution also spell out very detailed state policies for an elected government to implement, leaving little room for political parties to come up with policy platforms of their own. The proposed creation of a national crisis panel in the draft charter is also a cause for anxiety because it permits the intervention by non-elected office holders, led by senior judges, to bypass the normal democratic process without having to first obtain a public mandate.

All recommendations, criticisms and comments must be seriously considered by the drafters and the Constitution Drafting Assembly.

It was therefore disappointing to hear the hostile reaction of Prasong Soonsiri, chairman of the Constitution Drafting Committee, who launched into a blanket attack on political parties for their criticisms of the draft. Prasong went so far as to label all political parties and politicians self-serving and blamed them for bringing on the political crisis that culminated in the military coup.

Such huffing and puffing is showing Prasong, who was assigned such an important task, to be arrogant and undemocratic. Everyone in this society, including politicians, has the inalienable right of a citizen to criticise and comment on the draft of what could become the highest law of the land. Besides, the draft is now at a stage where feedback from people from all walks of life is being actively sought out.

No one is saying that all politicians are devoted to serving the people or are beyond blame for what happened to Thailand's democracy. But it is outrageous to lump honest politicians together with the worst of their kind and blame them for the failure of democracy.

Such a disrespectful attitude toward the people's representatives is completely unfair and unacceptable. Prasong's outburst compromised the dignity of his high office. Let's not forget that it is the people who are the real masters whom Prasong is supposed to be serving - not some self-righteous military leaders and overbearing bureaucrats who now wield absolute power.