There is nothing wrong about rewriting a Constitution - as long as it isn't designed to put a halt to impending punishment of a party found to have been involved in blatant electoral fraud.

A revision of the charter would certainly be welcomed if it was based on public aspirations to tighten the ground rules so that the standard of politics is raised to a higher level. But what we see happening now is the opposite.

Then there is the question of "due process". How you go about making the changes to the country's highest rules of the political game is as important as what substantial amendments you intend to make.

Political legitimacy is crucial, and it could be acquired only if any proposed change is made through a broad-based process that represents the public's aspirations. 

Bulldozing amendments to the charter through a majority vote in parliament doesn't necessarily bestow legitimacy to the move - especially if such a crude exercise is seen as an attempt to whitewash the guilty party and to wipe out all cases against former Premier Thaksin Shinawatra and his circle.

A proper participatory democratic system which, after all, is much more meaningful than parliamentary vote-counting, demands that any rewrite of the constitution would have to be debated, screened, and deliberated by a nation-wide constituent assembly that represents the interests of all groups in society. Any attempt to short-circuit the process to ram through the ruling party's agenda would be highly unpopular and potentially explosive. 

Thailand has had a similar form of "Constitution drafting assembly" twice in the recent past. All provinces were represented through a transparent selection process. 

As it turned out, the deliberations might have been controversial but they were open, frank, transparent and productive. The conclusions might not have been perfect or fool-proof political solutions but they at least achieved the vital goal of arriving at the "most acceptable under the political circumstances at the time."

But the ruling People Power Party has cut corners by simply calling for the formation of a "joint parliamentary committee" to make that highly controversial move. It has unwisely, though not unexpectedly, rejected the call for the setting up of a neutral, non-partisan national charter drafting committee to pre-empt any interference and manipulation of political parties.

What that means is simply that the PPP is intent upon using its majority in the House to achieve its self-serving mission without regard for the growing opposition to that campaign, which has become such a major political embarrassment that even a coalition partner, Puea Pandin, has come out openly to take a contrarian stand. The country's economic woes certainly deserve a much higher priority than tampering with the Constitution.

PPP isn't expected to listen to even such a "friendly piece of advice." It is in a great hurry to pre-empt a court ruling on its own future. Premier Samak Sundaravej's sense of insecurity is unmistakable. Ousted premier Thaksin Shinawatra is making his presence felt with his 99-temple whirlwind tour that smacks heavily of political posturing.

But it's not going to be plain-sailing. Opposition from various groups, including the staunch rival People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) and several groups of well-respected academics as well as a good part of the print media, has been rising - not necessarily against the proposed changes but certainly opposed to the heavy-handed manner with which the PPP is handling the issue.

Only 19 months after the September 19, 2006 coup and four months after the December 23, 2007 general election, we have managed to slide into a new "constitutional crisis" once again. 

Coups are disastrous and should never be contemplated ever again. But electoral manipulations that do not incorporate - and pay proper respect to - participatory democracy may also plunge the country into a serious confrontation that may be equally calamitous.