That, of course, is a far cry from what the rest of us consider to be the most important element of the democratic process.
For most voters, I presume, "political reform" indicates raising the bar of politics, improving the quality of politicians - and rewriting the ground rules so that we can kick out political skunks.
That's why, when you leave politics entirely to Thai politicians, what starts out as "political reform" will inevitably end up being nothing more than granting amnesty to those convicted of political crimes. Any change they would eventually approve would be nothing more than the few clauses in the constitution that they have tried - but failed - to circumvent.
In other words, they want the charter to be amended in such a way that if they were caught cheating red-handed, they should be given a chance to wriggle out of the punishment.
You and I may think it's thoroughly disgusting, but that, in their convoluted lexicon, is what "true democracy" is all about.
To this particular group of MPs, if you want to talk about democracy or national reconciliation, their main condition is to grant clemency to the 111 former executive members of the disbanded Thai Rak Thai Party, plus 109 former executives of the dissolved People Power (Palang Prachachong), Chat Thai and Matchima parties.
That's the trap Premier Abhisit Vejjajiva was falling into in Parliament at the end of the two-day debate on the "Bloody Songkran" debacle late last week. That's the black hole from which he tried to escape when he restated his position on the controversial issue.
In his first declaration, Abhisit said he was willing to consider an "amnesty" for political, not criminal, offences. He apparently thought that olive branch could calm the brewing political storm. But little did he realise that he was probably pouring oil onto the fire.
The premier then changed tack. He clarified in his Sunday television programme that what he had in mind was to invite all parties concerned to submit their proposals for amendment to the constitution to jump-start the process of political reform.
Abhisit made it clear in his latest statement that there would be no sweeping amnesty for all politicians banned from politics for five years.
They were all punished under Article 237 of the Constitution, which stipulates that executive members of a political party found to have been involved in electoral fraud will be suspended from politics for five years. That's based on the principle of collective responsibility for executives of political parties.
That particular clause, in essence, was incorporated in the current charter because money politics had dominated the country for far too long.
Abhisit took a step back from his earlier position when he said, as soon as he floated the idea of a political amnesty, "there have been strong reactions, both pros and cons".
That gave the premier a chance to reset his position: "What I have said is that we should put all suggestions on the table so that all parties concerned can discuss a way out. My stance is that only political offences would be considered. Criminal offences are out of the question."
Abhisit then, in his own subtle way, threw a bombshell into the political arena: "It [the proposed amnesty] may not come with the proposing of a new bill. It may be in the form of a provisional clause of a new bill. Or we may go for a referendum. But I don't want to be seen to be influencing the debate one way or the other."
His dilemma apparently is that even some of the senior members of his own Democrat Party are against any move to offer clemency to the banned politicians.
Banyat Bantadthan, one of the most senior Democrats, went so far as to say publicly that if the amnesty bill went through, it would give Thaksin and his cronies a big boost.
But some of his coalition partners are putting pressure on Abhisit to proceed with the move. Of course, they stand to gain once clemency is granted.
How does he get out of this apparent stalemate?
You know Abhisit has suddenly matured when he said something to the effect: "Why don't we ask the people to decide for us?"
You can say he is a true Democrat. Or you can say his learning curve in real-life politics is surprisingly short. He has managed to spring out of the corner with great agility.