Along with elements widely deemed undemocratic, such as an appointed Senate which could be empowered to jointly select the prime minister, the charter draft defines the future path of national development with a set of reforms and national strategies that are unprecedented.

In a recent interview with The Nation, Constitution Drafting Commission spokesperson Chartchai na Chiangmai summed up the vision behind the draft as “restorative democracy” in contrast to the retributive politics he said had achieved nothing except for fierce competition for resources and seats, plus longstanding conflict and division.

Referring to the Western model of democracy, he added, “The textbook system just does not work here now. We have to look at the reality, that we need good people and politics restored first. We first need an atmosphere for co-existing and sharing before we can move ahead together.”

The word “restorative” brings to mind not only what went wrong in the past, but also what desperately needs to be done in the future. But “how” we travel that path is the crucial question lingering in many minds, including mine.

The route being offered in the new charter draft is a challenge to all of us. Each must examine the consequences from all sides before making a decision whether to accept it or not.

As such, the road leading to the referendum in the next few months is critically important. It needs to be open and inclusive of different views and ideas in order that the draft content receives proper and universal scrutiny.

That process would also generate the legitimacy of genuine popular consensus for a charter draft that is at present beset by controversy.

Unfortunately, the authorities have apparently turned a blind eye to the need for such openness. With a new referendum law in place, authorities including the Election Commission (EC) have taken swift action to close down debate.

Instead of allowing open and inclusive discussion to prevail, the powers-that-be have chosen to rely on a law whose vague wording seems aimed at instilling paranoia and enforcing a clampdown on debate. Among the first to be threatened was an academic, whose “crime” was to distribute leaflets at a seminar organised by the Platform of Concerned Citizens, a newly formed group of scholars and civil rights advocates. The leaflets contained seven points on why the draft should be rejected. Then, on Wednesday, the EC launched a complaint against a group of Facebook users, alleging they had posted harsh and disturbing messages attacking the draft. The EC failed to elaborate on the content of the messages.

Along with the referendum law, the computer crimes act is also being used to curb freedom of expression, with at least 10 people arrested on the same day recently.

The ongoing clampdown on those voicing opinions against the draft not only creates a climate of fear, it also shuts the door on a thorough public review of the content and its chances of legitimacy.

Narrowed by such strict enforcement of the law, the road leading to the referendum looks like suppression and appears to set a bleak path for the future of the country and its people.

However, it is not too late for the authorities to review their thinking and change their course. Thai society desperately needs room for dialogue on these issues of crucial importance so that a true “restorative” atmosphere of coexistence has a chance to grow.

More than anything, as citizens of this country we have a basic right to open debate about its future.