Leading public-law expert Assoc Prof Worachet Pakeerut of Thammasat University talks to Pravit Rojanaphruk about controversy surrounding the drafting of a post-coup constitution.

What is your view of the Constitution-drafting process?

I think the process is rather backward. Few details have been laid out except for the selection of 2,000 people for a National People's Assembly (NPA) who will select 200 from themselves for a drafting body.

It's like back in 1974. The National Security Council (NSC) will reduce that number down to 100 without any criteria for how that is done. It's up to the NSC chairman to decide. The NSC will appoint 10 Constitution drafters as well.

It's much more backward than the process of drafting the 1997 Constitution. It's a very dated way of drafting a Constitution. There's no reason why the NSC should select 100 people out of the pool of 200.

Some argue the government should simply amend articles of the 1997 People's Constitution.

I was one of those who as early as five to six years ago pointed out that the 1997 Constitution had problems. My stance, however, is to fix those through proper legal mechanisms.

Why did the coup leaders have to tear down the Constitution? It's because their actions were illegal under the 1997 Constitution. If they kept that Constitution, one day some people could take legal action against them. They destroyed it because if their coup failed they're guilty of treason.

But the coup leaders claim for the first time there will be a referendum on the new Constitution and, thus, the process is more democratic than in the past.

Yes. We must accept that this is a first and if it receives the people's approval it will bolster its legitimacy. But the question is, what if it doesn't? Then the NSC will have the power to adopt whichever previous Constitution they see fit. I expect a great social clash during the referendum because society has been ideologically divided and it's not certain if that can be resolved before the referendum.

The "no" vote during the refer-endum could instead be a vote of disapproval [of the junta and its regime].

Other issues, such as a finite two terms for prime ministers and members of parliaments, or whether the prime minister should be chosen from elected politicians, and many other issues will be fiercely debated.

Old political groups will try to protect their interests, too.

Are you involved in the Constitution drafting process?

No. Since I saw how the interim Constitution looked and how the Constitution drafting assembly was chosen I decided not to have anything to do with it.

The coup leaders should have no role in the drafting process.

I lack any legitimacy to represent anyone in this process. The Thammasat University community contacted me and inquired if I wished to be endorsed as one of two from the university to join the 2,000-member NPA and I said no. In the end, I don't even know who is representing Thammasat.

There is an argument that Thai people do not value the importance of a charter and, therefore, we should pay it little attention.

[The Constitution] is the highest law but it's the social force that breathes life into it. People do not think the charter is in anyway important to them.

Even after the coup some people said the charter is long dead [so we shouldn't oppose the coup]. In a way, this logic reinforces the legitimacy of solving problems by using means outside a constitutional system.

We could have instead had an election [this November] and elevated the struggle [against Thaksin Shinawatra] to another level. Yet we resorted to the old ways [like the coup of 1991].

How can we strengthen the Constitution and make it part of our political culture that we hold dear?

All parties must contribute, starting from the highest institution in the land. His Majesty the King must play a part but it's risky to make such a suggestion in Thai society.

The bad omens began in 1933 when part of the first Constitution was temporarily suspended. It started to create the feeling that this was perhaps not the supreme law. But no matter what level of crisis we face, we must try to solve it within the system.

Yet how many times did we tear the Constitution down citing previous government corruption as justification?

If such justification is to be taken seriously, then we can stage a coup every day.

In the future, Thais will think coups are a good solution whenever they face political problems. Instead of thinking about the rule of law, they'll think about the military.

I'm not sure if the folk spirit of the Thai people is that of autocracy or not, because they tend to approve of using power to solve problems.

 What's even more alarming to me is the moral dichotomy between good and evil - that if you stand on the opposite side of me, you must be evil.

There will be many more coups.