Last week, the interim leader, lampooned by critics who call him "Old Ginger", proved he could surprise them by speeding things up if he wanted to. He promised "a new prime minister before the new year". That was a breeze of fresh air amid the ongoing depressing politics of confrontation.

But his plan was seriously flawed in that he didn't offer any clear political roadmap for the country for the next six months. Even the most optimistic observers would tell you that the political landscape for the second half of the year is full of landmines.

The premier predicted that those drafting the new constitution would wrap up their work in the first week of next month. He also indicated that the controversial constitution referendum could take place in August, after which the Election Commission could set the stage for an election in November and, if his own sense of timing was right, a new Parliament could be in place in early December. Hence his audacity to stick his neck out and predict that a new prime minister could be named before the new year is upon us.

That assumes that everything goes like clockwork and that there is absolutely no risk of any step along the way being sabotaged by one group of vested interests or another. For a man known for his politically unpopular caution and aversion to risk-taking, Surayud's tone of confidence and determination came as a surprise.

The constitution-drafting committee has yet to settle all the major differences of opinion on crucial clauses. The public in general has yet to appreciate the subtle and hidden meanings of the proposed changes. Worse, a large segment of the population isn't quite sure what all the fuss is about and they expect authorities - drafters, the government, the media and their better informed neighbours - to engage them in discussions that will somehow enable them to decide on whether to vote in favour of the draft in the upcoming referendum.

The referendum will prove to be the most crucial test of how bumpy the country's road back to democracy will turn out to be. Several politically motivated groups have declared their opposition to the draft, no matter how it's written. Others have protested certain provisions out of their own vested interests. And there is also a hardcore movement that will campaign for the public to vote "no" or to abstain (the impact of which, under the interim charter, would be equivalent to a negative ballot) simply because they want to snub the government and the coup-leaders.

Here lies the most serious stumbling block of all: what if the majority of people vote "no" to the charter draft?

Premier Surayud has yet to come up with a series of clear signposts, including a well-coordinated and effective plan to explain the ramifications of a "yes" vote, a "no" vote, or a vote in which the majority abstain.

It is clear to all concerned that if the draft is rejected in a popular vote, the interim constitution stipulates clearly that the power to decide on a new constitution almost arbitrarily goes to the coup-leaders (the Council for National Security [CNS] headed by General Sonthi Boonyaratglin) and the Cabinet, headed by Premier Surayud. In other words, we have been placed in a Catch-22 situation: vote "yes" - and you feel like you are lending legitimacy to a coup-backed constitution. Vote "no" - and you practically throw the power to the coup-leaders to impose any version of the constitution draft they want.

The prime minister certainly is not unaware of this terrible dilemma.

Is he going to convince himself and the CNS leadership to make a firm commitment in advance - as part of the process to "ensure wide public participation in the new political process - to the effect that they would not exercise their option to impose a charter of their own choosing, if a negative vote should come to pass? What then, is his vision of a draft that he and the coup-leaders would support? Is he going to initiate an informed and wide-ranging debate prior to the referendum to "educate" the general public about the complexities of the upcoming vote? None of these questions have been addressed in his pledge to accelerate the political process.

Why? Unfortunately, no answers are forthcoming because the country has been trapped in an intellectually atrophied mode - the scholars, politicians and media have all been obsessed with their own games of survival, putting their authority-questioning role on the backburner.

You can only guess at the reasons why Premier Surayud has hit the "fast-forward" button without installing a "mine-sweeper" up front. Perhaps he is fed up with the job and wants to turn it over to a new prime minister. Perhaps he is trying to snub his critics who he thinks have been underestimating his ability to call the shots when he wants to. Perhaps he thinks by moving things forward, the "old power clique" won't have time to regroup to regain power.

Or perhaps, when all is said and done, Surayud's real message to his detractors could well be: "Be careful with what you wish for…you may just get it."

Suthaichai Yoon