That's the nightmare haunting the constitution drafters, whose worst fear has been confirmed by a number of opinion polls over how the public perceives the new charter, currently being debated and drafted. Their main concern isn't so much that a good segment of the populace is against the main proposed provisions; it's that people just don't care.

Political apathy, of course, isn't a novel phenomenon in Thai politics. But previously - before coup leaders tried to play the game of democracy - we had a subtle way of hiding the skeletons in our closets. We didn't have to wash our dirty linen in public.

But then certain overzealous legal advisers who were driven to coup headquarters on the evening of September 19 last year by rebels desperately seeking legitimacy had the bright idea to draw up a "provisional charter" that would outdo all previous ones by adding a "referendum" clause into the new set of rules for the game.

I am sure the coup-makers, in the great rush of the moment, didn't even notice anything unusual in the document. After all, the legal advisers were trying to please the military leaders whose only instruction was perhaps for the academic assistants to make them look as "democratic" as possible. The legal counsellors, of course, thought they could get away with that because they weren't going to be around for the referendum anyway.

The truth behind the age-old warning - "Be careful with what you ask for. You might just get it" - is making itself felt very painfully now. That make-or-break clause in the hastily-decreed provisional constitution makes it compulsory for the constitution drafters to put the final draft to a public referendum, in which the people can only cast either a "yes" or "no" vote to decide the fate of the country's highest piece of legislation.

This high-stakes political exercise - which, according to official estimates, will cost taxpayers Bt1.6 billion - means that if the majority vote positively, the constitution becomes law without any guarantee that it won't be shredded by the next group of coup leaders. On the other hand, if, for some reason, the draft were to be turned down by a majority "no" vote, we would be back to another dangerous game. The coup-leaders - now known as the Council for National Security (CNS) - and the Cabinet would get to decide which previous constitution should be dusted off, revised and made law - without having to listen to any opposing views ever again.

It may not be exactly a "heads-I-win-tails-you-lose" situation, but it's quite close to that unenviable state of affairs for the rest of the country. Because of its over-simplistic approach, things could get highly chaotic indeed. The Constitution Drafting Committee has every reason to be terrified about the various dangerous scenarios that could result.

What if the voter turnout ends up being so embarrassingly low that even a "yes" vote would be considered illegitimate? Even if everybody is bound by law to cast a referendum ballot, there is still no guarantee that a large number of voters won't mark their ballots "undecided". And what if a good number of them resort to the protest gesture of destroying their ballots?

What if the "old power clique" starts instigating a movement encouraging people to vote "no" to the constitution regardless of its contents? Most people, especially those in far-flung places, don't follow the Bangkok-based and media-centred debate over the various controversial clauses anyway. They could be easily swayed one way or the other by local influential elements to vote against the draft.

The hidden agenda, of course, is to portray the referendum on the constitution draft as a public opinion poll between the ex-premier, Thaksin Shinawatra, and the man who overthrew him, Army Chief General Sonthi Boonyaratglin.

Achieving this would be extremely comical but not entirely impossible. Of course, if the pro-Thaksin groups pursue this politically provocative course, the consequence would be to throw the ball back to the military's court again. The possibility of a "second coup" doesn't necessarily work in favour of any medium-term benefits for Thaksin either.

The most "reasonable", but no less embarrassing, scenario would show that most people don't know much about what the constitution debate is all about and don't really care very deeply about the proposed provisions. And even those following the drafting closely would find it difficult to make up their minds when their choice is only to cast a "yes" or "no" vote. They may like one clause but reject the next one.

The supreme paradox is that in such a situation the totally ignorant and the thoroughly educated are in the same position. They are bound to ask the same question: What's this constitution got to do with me?