Several academics yesterday lashed out at the call by the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) for a royally appointed prime minister, saying it was undemocratic and created the conditions for violence.

Chulalongkorn University historian Suthachai Yimprasert said the call was unconstitutional, as no single word in the Constitution allowed the palace to appoint a new prime minister while one was in office.

"If we really want the palace to pick a new prime minister, we need to stop using the Constitution as this could create many problems later," he told a seminar.

 In history, His Majesty the King would appoint a new prime minister only after one resigned, he said, adding that the appointment of new prime ministers after the uprisings in 1973 and 1992 occurred after the resignations of Field Marshall Thanom Kittikachorn and General Suchinda Kraprayoon respectively.

The PAD, which is staging a marathon protest against Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, has called for a royally appointed prime minister to replace Thaksin in accordance with Section 7 of the Constitution.

 The section says: "Whenever no provision under this Constitution is applicable to any case, it shall be decided in accordance with the constitutional practice in the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State."

PAD coordinator Suriyasai Katasila defended his position, saying there was no other method to oust Thaksin after months of peaceful protest.

"It is not unconstitutional. We need to stop using some sections [in the Constitution] in order to pave the way for an unelected prime minister to take care of political reform," he said.

Three academics from Thammasat University and two other panellists told a separate seminar that there was no need to call for a royally appointed prime minister.

"The situation is not yet a crisis but amazingly normal, and there are still ways to resolve the conflict," political scientist Chaiwat Satha-anan said.

Chaiwat said the proposal by the PAD to invoke Section 7 of the Constitution was not justified by current circumstances.

"Section 7 can be enforced, but the question is whether it is appropriate to do so," he said at a seminar organised by the Thai Journalists' Association. He argued that the enforcement of Section 7 might achieve the short-term victory of forcing Thaksin to quit but would not bridge the social divide.

Academic Kasien Techapeera said HM the King should step in only if anarchy prevailed.

"Hasty royal intervention could be construed as siding with either of the warring parties," he said, warning that such a move now could set a precedent for swaying the monarch to get rid of political opponents.

Nakharin Mektrairat, dean of the university's Political Science Faculty, said the political system should be overhauled to preclude another Thaksin-style administration from gaining power.

Lawyer Pirote Polphet from the Union of Civil Liberty said it was impossible to have a royally appointed prime minister replace Thaksin without violence.

"I am worried the PAD might create a violent situation to justify enforcement of Section 7," he said.

Academic Saowani Jitreun, from Rangsit University, said the call for a royally appointed prime minister was a step backward in Thai politics, perhaps to the era of absolute monarchy before the 1932 revolution.