Even though the Democrats have said constitutional amendment is incorporated as part of the coalition government's manifesto, it is pointless for them or other proponents of this agenda to expect the No.1 direct beneficiary of the 2017 charter, namely Prime Minister Gen Prayut Chan-o-cha, to give charter change his full support. The premier already made it clear on Wednesday that there was no rush to alter the constitution, while also cautioning that the process is "lengthy".
What he did not elaborate on is the fact that swiftly changing the constitution could pave the way for the real democratic process of selecting a prime minister to take root sooner. In return, it could cost him the chance of making an easy comeback to the top job for a third time. This in itself is a strong enough reason to initiate this push in parliament sooner rather than later.
Section 272 of the charter that allows 250 senators handpicked by Gen Prayut to join the Lower House in a prime ministerial vote is among the many contentious issues branded as undemocratic and backward by the charter change proponents. This vote should be solely the role of MPs who represent the voters, not senators who have demonstrated they represent Gen Prayut's interests.
Given its five-year term, the senators will be there to support Gen Prayut in the next prime ministerial vote, whether his government completes its four-year term or not. Even if Gen Prayut does not put his name up a third time, a less likely scenario, this process is still undemocratic.
Under the charter, either the cabinet, one fifth of the lawmakers in both houses, one fifth of MPs or 50,000 eligible voters can propose a constitutional amendment motion for deliberation by parliament.
If the Democrats are sincere about this, they need to leave other coalition parties to themselves and start working with MPs from the opposition parties, who have pledged to push ahead with charter change in parliament.
Early this month, a civic group launched a campaign to gather signatures of those supporting charter change.
In addition to Section 272, proponents of charter change also call for the removal of Section 279 that recognises as legal orders and announcements issued by the now-dissolved National Council for Peace and Order. They want changes to many new electoral rules and systems that have weakened the political party system and undermined other democratic principles rather than promote them. These include the conditions that make it possible for a non-MP to be chosen as prime minister.
Gen Prayut was right in pointing out that charter amendment would be a difficult and lengthy process. That is because his drafters made it that way to serve his interests.
In order to have a charter amendment motion passed in parliament, approval must be given by one third of the Senate in the first and third readings along with other bloc votes, prior to going to the final stage of holding a referendum. Securing the required Senate vote would be tough, and perhaps nigh on impossible given the senators' loyalty to Gen Prayut.
But this does not mean that this crucial matter should be put on the backburner as Gen Prayut appears to have suggested. Given the many obstacles, the need is instead to speed up the process.
The 2016 charter referendum was a waste because it was held under a climate of fear with vote-no campaigners suppressed. The people deserve a second chance to decide on the contents of the supreme law.