That, of course, is a dangerous misconception. If, in the end, this charter doesn't effectively serve the "little" people - those who politicians are fond of calling "grassroots" in order to justify their massive spending sprees, then it would be nothing more than an academic exercise for scholars, not a noble document aimed at creating a genuine democracy.

Some serious questions must be brought to the attention of charter writers who are currently engaged in an intense debate.

In this age of unmediated democracy, what will happen to the carefully contrived constitutional system of checks and balances?

Who will protect minorities against the passions and tyranny and excesses of the popular majority? Who's going to speak on behalf of ethnic hilltribe people to guarantee their right to manage their own natural resources? It's obvious that the biases of the authorities as well as discriminatory government policies remain a serious obstacle for ethnic groups, but unless such a guarantee is clearly incorporated into the new constitution, the "highland-lowland" gap will continue to plague Thai society.

Who will protect the majority from being manipulated by public opinion experts, political spin-doctors and unscrupulous pollsters?

Who will protect the poor from the permanent majority of the rich and powerful?

Who can offset the persuasive power of big money, the frequent lies and misleading political statements, the corruption of politics through the so-called "legal bribery" by lobbyists and vested interest groups seeking favours from government and the pervasive influence of those who control the state media and private telecommunications empires?

How can those who own the means of communication and dominate the media through lopsided expenditures be prevented from overwhelming the debate, slanting the discussion and unfairly influencing the public at large?

In the current commercial television climate, good quality documentaries about important public issues have all but disappeared from the screen. The quality of information is getting worse, not better. And this has nothing to do with the uproar over the Cabinet's decision on Tuesday to put an end to the operations of iTV, previously owned by former premier Thaksin Shinawatra and later sold to Singapore's Temasek Holdings for its failure to pay a Bt100-billion fine for violating the station's founding principles.

There is also the important question about how the new constitution can provide the necessary mechanisms to handle the rise of public discontent, caused partly by how Thaksin's overwhelming House majority was exploited to benefit political elites and their inner circle.

No doubt a large number of educated and informed citizens have grown increasingly disenchanted with politics, politicians and political parties. No doubt, the mass media have also fed their cynicism.

The number of voters is growing who believe that their political leaders are out of touch with the people's real problems and who as citizens feel a sense of powerlessness - not to mention the worsening feeling that those who run the country don't really care what happens to them. The deepening sense of alienation and frustration that Thai people feel toward the government has grown despite Thaksin's populist platform - an attempt to go all out to curry favour with the so-called "grassroots" voters. Now, they know it was nothing but part of an expensive game funded by their own tax money.

The constitution writers will have to arm ordinary citizens with the power and "weapons" that will enable them to reach responsible and informed judgements. Access to information is the key to successful self-governance.

The public's ability to receive, absorb and analyse information can no longer be left to happenstance.

Ironically, new interactive telecommunications technologies are here but they aren't being put to work on behalf of democracy. The tools may be sophisticated but since they are being used without the information, political organisation, education, or preparation needed for them to be used wisely, such new gadgets and systems may be used by the powers-that-be to undermine - not enhance - the democratic process.

Ask the real "common people" who have been through five years of "Thaksinomics". They would tell you that politics is simply too dangerous to be left to politicians, especially those specialising in money politics and cronyism.