A December deadline will be good enough. The Council for National Security (CNS) promised to restore full democracy to Thailand by year's end.

Surayud's insistence on an early election may have raised eyebrows, but it only makes sense when one takes a closer look at the outcome. First, the NLA, which had been dawdling, suddenly snapped into action and managed to pass the bulk of the new charter and is now set to beat the deadline. Second, it put a damper on the political ambitions of some members of the military junta.

In other words, Surayud has been sending an unambiguous signal - in the most civilised manner - to everyone that is unacceptable for anyone charged with restoring democracy to try anything to undermine this most crucial process.

If the NLA cannot pass the constitution within a 180-day timeframe, or by July 9, the military junta will have an excuse to push through its own alternate charter.

The public expects the NLA to come up with a workable constitution that both captures the democratic aspirations of the Thai people, as well as establishes a social contract between the state and its citizens that is just. The perceived ability of such a constitution to receive a yes vote is also very important.

In the event the proposed charter is rejected in the referendum, the military junta will step in to have an alternative constitution promulgated to pave the way for the general election.

That scenario would set Thailand's attempt to restore democracy off on the wrong footing because it would give the impression that the military sets the national agenda - without any input from members of the civil society, who make up a substantial part of the NLA.

Surayud, a respected former Army chief known for his military professionalism and respect for democracy, is in a unique position.

On the one hand, he was appointed by the military junta as prime minister because they trusted him as a fellow military-man. On the other, Surayud's image as a clean military officer also enables him to gain wide acceptability among the public.

These two factors were supposed to be complementary, making him the perfect person to lead the transition from military rule to restoration of full democracy.

If only all members of the military junta could be trusted to make good on their promises to work themselves out of their current job as undemocratic enforcers, return democracy to the people, go back to the barracks and submit themselves to the future civilian government. Surayud must have seen both the dark and bright sides of Thailand's attempt to find its way back to democracy. But Surayud needs to maintain a delicate balance to accommodate or tolerate some of the less than honourable intentions of certain members of the junta in order to stay on as prime minister and complete the job without compromising the short-term survival of the country's democracy or its sustainability over the long term.

But despite his sincere efforts to give the Thai people and the international community the much-needed reassurance that Thailand remains on course to return to democratic rule, moving the deadline for the election forward and then back is causing unnecessary confusion and, worse, the impression that there are some unspoken factors that could affect the whole process.

A better approach would be for the prime minister to also get the CNS to commit to a fixed date for a general election. There is no good reason why the military junta shouldn't do that if they sincerely want a smooth transition to democracy.