"WE the Democrats aren't ready for an election yet. There are still problems to be solved." So declared Deputy Premier Suthep Thaugsuban, who is also the party's secretary-general.

His most crucial role, though, is that of "government manager", whose main mission is to make sure this coalition of the unwilling doesn't break up before his own party is ready for the next national ballot.

As if on cue, PM Abhisit Vejjajiva said on the same day: "If all parties concerned work together, the charter changes should be done in six months - or nine at the latest."

The spin may be different but the message is the same: We call the shots and we aren't ready to call an election.

The truth, however, isn't so clear cut. Abhisit, as premier, may have the constitutional authority to decide when to dissolve Parliament. But the fluid political situation means he could be forced to make decisions he doesn't want to make at a time that doesn't fit his timetable at all.

But the Democrat leader survives by default. It's not because he is strong and unshakeable. It's because the opposition is weak and unpersuasive. Thaksin Shinawatra, the real opposition leader, albeit in absentia, may be making frantic phone calls to relay his pronouncements from abroad, but his chances of making a comeback have not improved.

Abhisit is trying to portray an image of a leader ready to go "back to the people" any time. A House dissolution and snap election are part of the game, he says. And nobody should be surprised when that happens. The opposition Pheu Thai Party shoots back: If that's the case, why then doesn't the PM prove his point by letting the people return to the polling booths?

Abhisit's response to this demand has always been: But doesn't the opposition want the charter amended before the next contest happens? How can we be sure that chaos won't break out on the campaign trail if the ground rules aren't laid down first? Besides, the government wants the economic recovery plan to show some positive results before people cast their ballots yet again.

No doubt, critics are quick to point out that Abhisit is only stalling for time. The longer he can delay the next poll, the more the Democrats can hope to win more votes in the new election, now that the 2010 budget has passed the House.

How it is spent could determine how voters will cast their ballots.

Of course, you don't expect anyone in the government to admit to that. Neither can you assume that the opposition will let the final act in this drama play out for too long. That's why the proposed referendum for the charter changes has raised a new controversy.

You could argue on behalf of Abhisit that without asking the public to vote on the amended constitution, the new changes would be doomed. Public cynicism is widespread against politicians trying to change clauses only to benefit their positions - and public interest isn't on their agenda at all.

Or you could reflect the opposition's line by attacking the PM for his delaying tactics. To critics, Abhisit's insistence on a referendum over the new constitution draft is nothing more than a ploy to prolong his term for as long as possible.

When all is said and done, the real issue isn't about whether a referendum should be carried out or not. The big issue is how it is going to be implemented.

If the plebiscite was simply to ask the public for a simple "yes" or "no" to the new charter draft, it could spark a new round of hard-fought and explosive confrontation between the Democrats and Pheu Thai. Another incendiary yellow-red face-off could be revived.

On the other hand, if the referendum is designed in such a way that the people get to vote whether to accept or reject certain clauses, item by item, that could provoke another kind of confrontation: Between politicians' expediency and the public's deepening cynicism.

What if the PM's favourite proposed changes are exactly what the sceptical public considers to be the kind of clauses to keep MPs honest and hold them accountable?

Or is that part of Abhisit's grand plan all along?

Or is that what the opposition has dreaded all along?

And don't forget that 14 million people voted in the last referendum in favour of the present Constitution.

Wouldn't it be nice and logical to first ask the 14 million voters whether they agree with changing the clauses again?