• 
• 
• 

When the leaders of the coalition partners first raised the issue of amending the constitution to return to the single-constituencies system, the Democrat Party's leaders immediately dismissed it as insignificant rumbling within the family.

And when Banharn Silpa-archa, owner of the Chart Thai Pattana Party, started to sound serious by mobilising the other coalition partner, Newin Chidchob's Bhum Jai Thai Party and two other small parties to his campaign, the Democratic chiefs began to publicly pay attention to the call.

Just as the battle cry intensified, the Democrats' annual pow-wow in the southern province of Krabi devoted five full hours to debating the issue. The Democrat MPs said they were engaged in a very heated debate. And as expected, they couldn't reach a consensus. What did they do? They resorted to the good old practice: Let our elders decide for us.

When the MPs decided not to decide, the task of making that decision was passed on to the party's executive committee. The decision to stall was unmistakable. They knew the party's executives would come up with their own version of buying more time.

And voila! As if on cue, the party's executive committee wasted no time in arriving at the unexpected decision: No, we won't join the coalition partners to push for the charter amendment.

If that sounds tough, the other part of the decision was nothing if not a collective show of the faint-hearted. How would the Democrat MPs vote on this proposed amendment? The party's executives ruled that another decision would be made on that issue some other time. In other words, the verdict was: We will cross the bridge when we come to it.

And when they knew they could no longer play the waiting game, the Democrat MPs called an urgent meeting to cast an 82:48 vote to reject the coalition partners' move.

The immediate reaction of the political pundits was unanimous: It's the Democrats all over again. They want to tell the world that they stick to the principle of things. And just as everybody was ready to believe them, they turn around to say: We want to do the right thing, but let's think twice before committing ourselves to a good cause.

You could almost detect the subtle difference between the party's leader, Premier Abhisit Vejjajiva, and the secretary-general, Deputy PM Suthep Thaugsuban.

It wasn't really a split of the giants within the party; it's principle versus pragmatism. It's old-style politics versus new, enlightened management. It's probably a struggle between the coalition government's short-term survival against the party's long-term credibility in the public's eye.

Abhisit said the decision was based on adhering to the party's long-standing principle. He even suggested that if sticking to the correct stand should mean the collapse of the coalition government, so be it: "I am ready to be in the opposition."

Suthep, however, plays the pragmatist's role. Just as the closed-door debate reached it peak, the secretary-general issued a thinly-veiled threat: If we don't go along with the coalition partners on this score, "then prepare for a new election".

He later toned it down by explaining that he was simply making that comment by way of analysing the on-the-ground situation. And when Abhisit, in response to a reporter's question, declared "I am ready to be the opposition leader again", it was more than just an isolated statement.

While the premier insisted that the party could not possibly bend with the coalition partners on such a crucial question, the deputy premier jumped with both feet into the other camp: "If we don't side with our friends, do you want us to side with our foes?"

But don't be fooled by their respective public statements. Even if the party leader and secretary-general sounded like they were emerging from two different party meetings, the executive committee's ruling was submitted to a vote among the MPs on the same day. That vote was 82:48 (with two abstentions) against the proposed charter change.

But technically, that's still strictly a decision not to join the coalition partners in the proposed move. How the Democrat MPs will actually cast their ballots when the vote comes up remains a non-decision. For all intents and purposes, the Democrats have only made half a decision. In principle, they know where they should stand. In practice, you can see their knees shaking somewhat.

First ask the PM, then cross check that with his deputy. Then you'll know why the MPs and the party's executives had to throw the hot potato back and forth.