The drawing up of the new charter has reached a critical juncture as the first draft is supposed to be polished into the country's highest law.

In light of myriad criticisms generated by the month-long debate, the 35 charter writers are facing a tough challenge to come up with a second draft acceptable to everyone, or at least tolerable to all parties concerned.

For the next 30 days, the charter writers will have to complete rewriting the first draft by factoring in opinions aired via a series of public hearings and reports submitted by 12 organisations vetting the draft, including the government and the junta.

Upon completion of the second draft, the 100-member Constitution Drafting Assembly (CDA) is expected to debate and vote on it by July 6.

Should the charter writers fail to revise certain provisions satisfactorily, the CDA can move a motion to address each contentious issue. Each motion would require the endorsement of 10 CDA members.

To override the charter writers, the CDA needs a minimum vote of 60 to replace each draft provision. Each CDA member can endorse only one motion to revise the draft, resulting in a maximum of 10 changes the CDA can impose on the draft.

The elaborate process to vet the second draft is designed to allow a final window of opportunity to push for the passage of the constitution draft in the September referendum.

If the CDA opts to reject the second draft instead of revising it or if voters turn the final, CDA-vetted draft down in the referendum, the political turmoil will likely intensify as the junta will promulgate its preferred version of an old constitution as the new one.

Opponents of the junta-sponsored draft should reflect on their activism - whether they want the new constitution - in which all sides could have a say - or choose to sulk and allow the junta to impose its version of democratic rule.

Aside from the conflicting views on the choice of wording, the first draft has contained a surprisingly small number of contentious issues that could lead to a failed referendum.

If the charter writers and the CDA put in their utmost effort to salvage the draft, then there still is a glimmer of hope for a successful transition back to democratic rule.

The revision of the first draft is expected to centre on few core issues, including the proposal on the crisis panel and the future of the Senate.

Although charter writer Prasong Soonsiri remains adamant to retain the draft provision on the crisis panel, which he describes as a fire exit for an unforeseen problem beyond the existing mechanisms for checks and balances, he is fast becoming isolated.

The vast majority of charter writers and CDA members now view the proposal with scepticism and have voiced their support to dropping the controversial clause. They are concerned that the panel, if formed, would become a puppet of the powers-that-be.

The judiciary has strongly opposed the idea on grounds that the greater involvement of judges in the political process may politicise the courts.

The future of the Senate is likely to become a most difficult hurdle to overcome in the draft revision.

Charter writers have insisted on ushering in an appointed Senate or at least installing a mixed system of screening senatorial candidates before allowing them to face the voters. Critics put forward an equally strong argument to retain the elected Senate.

The opposing sides agree that it is impractical to expect any political neutrality from elected senators but they have failed to come up with a solution to this dilemma.

With the debate on the Senate reaching a stalemate, many have circulated a third option to do away with the upper chamber altogether. Many democratic countries have opted for a unicameral legislature.

Political parties have been pretty much delegated to the sidelines in the drafting process although political veterans are keen to know the outcome of the debate on the voting system.

With the aim of preventing a single party from dominating Parliament, charter writers have opted to reintroduce the multi-seat constituency.

Critics have doubts about the resurgence of vote-buying, urging that the single-seat constituency should be retained.

Most of the issues being vetted in the draft revision have been rekindled from the debate linked to the drafting of the 1997 Constitution.

A decade ago, political reformers were confronted with the challenge to revamp the Senate just like the charter writers who are facing a similar problem now.

If a solution can be found then, there is no reason to suspect why a compromise to reshape the political landscape cannot be struck now.

Avudh Panananda

The Nation