Forging reconciliation in a country that has been torn apart by more than a decade of violent political conflicts is a formidable, if not impossible, task.
It is therefore laudable that the 30-plus charter drafters took up the mission on no matter how difficult it may seem.
This is no doubt a thankless job.
With the Constitution Drafting Committee (CDC) being appointed by the military junta that took over the country's administration on May 22 last year, many people are opposed to its work just because of how it has come into being.
As the charter drafters seek to draw new rules which they hope will compel people to step away from their entrenched positions and allow them to collaborate constructively, they have been criticised by members of all sides of the political conflicts.
Obviously, these conflicting parties are still stuck in a zero-sum game and keep on wishing that their ideology and theirs alone will prevail.
The political stalemate which turned violent and led to loss of lives and finally the military takeover nine months ago should remind everyone that certain things must be changed. We simply cannot revert to the same old political settings — rules as well as characters — and hope that things will not be the same.
That said, the charter drafters may have pinned too much hope on the "grand design" of having a new election system likely to produce a coalition government as being the central springboard for national reconciliation.
The CDC has hailed the mixed member proportional representation system (MMP) to be introduced for use in the next election presumably as a more effective method to produce people's representation.
The system, which include seats for constituency MPs and those from party lists, will ensure that every vote counts in electing representatives, not just those that go to candidates who receive the highest scores.
Although the German-style election system is rather complicated and made even more so by the CDC's addition of a unique "open list" system in which voters will be allowed to rank their own list candidate, it should not be rejected out of hand.
For now, political parties and politicians seem to have united in their opposition to the proposed system which they believe will result in a weak government while increasing the bargaining power of small- and medium-sized parties.
There is also a concern that the unprecedented "open list" system will confuse voters and tilt votes toward candidates who are better known to the public.
There is time for those who disagree with the proposed system to voice their opinions and it is hoped the charter drafters will consider their points carefully.
Modifications may be needed to make the system work better in the Thai political reality. Still, what should remain key to the issue is for the country to have an election system that will produce as accurate a representation as possible, not to make it convenient for certain political players.
The only thing that is troubling about the CDC's plan, however, is its presumption that the new election system will produce reconciliation by design because it could force the two major rival parties — the Democrats and Pheu Thai — to sit together in a coalition.
Even though this unlikely prospect could somehow become reality, a marriage between the two political parties will not automatically lead to their supporters reconciling.
Reconciliation will take time and a lot more effort to foster from the ground up. It would be wrong to lead people to believe that a grand design exists in the charter that will help us achieve this daunting task.