The military regime's push for reconciliation has gotten off a shaky start, with key political leaders extending only a cautious welcome to its latest plan for all sides to sign a national unity pact.
While the tepid response must be seriously considered and taken into account, it should not be used as the reason to derail the effort. What the government should do is to take cue from the feedback and make necessary adjustments as it works toward addressing the decade-long political divide.
Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha revealed earlier this week that the government will ask political parties and groups involved in conflicts over the past decade to air their views about how to address the root causes of the rift.
The government's reconciliation committee, to be established, will spend about three months gathering the input. After that, it will come up with suggestions on how to proceed, including how to deal with legal issues which may include what to do with political cases.
At one point on the roadmap toward reconciliation, Gen Prayut suggested that those involved in the conflict will be asked to sign a memorandum of understanding to guarantee they will not return to yet another dispute and bring the country to a crisis again.
While United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) leader Jatuporn Prompan agreed to cooperate, former leader of the anti-election and Shutdown Bangkok protest group, Suthep Thaugsuban, announced he and his colleagues will not sign the MoU.
The two largest parties, Democrat and Pheu Thai, expressed their agreement with the unity initiative in principle but had some reservations about the process. In a move that may be viewed as defiant, some politicians also suggested the MoU or social contract will only truly be fair if the military regime signs on as well and promises not to stage a coup again. As expected, Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister Prawit Wongsuwon, who was assigned to supervise the task, refused to do so.
Amid the growing cacophony, the government must keep its focus and pay attention to constructive criticism.
One of those is an observation shared by both politicians and academics: Is it necessary for the committee working on the reconciliation issue to be made up of only military personnel?
Reconciliation connotes a coming together of all sides. If the military is allowed to monopolise the agenda, as evident in the all-green line-up of all unity-related committees, it's unlikely the effort will be recognised as being inclusive.
Also, the regime could be more specific about its latest unity drive or provide at least an intellectual framework so the effort can get off ground quickly and effectively. Right now, its initiative is too vague which makes its suggestion for all conflict groups to sign a pact rather impractical.
Studies abound about the root causes of the decade-long conflict and profound sense of divisiveness permeating the country. They span a wide gamut of both structural and immediate problems including economic and social inequalities, an ineffectual justice system and deep political polarisation.
All these issues will come up as the regime listens to the viewpoints of people involved in the conflict and they will be distracting.
Instead, the regime could zoom in to the heart of the matter and set the tone of the reconciliation effort.
While we will need to deal with the fractious past, what the country needs now is a sense of a shared future. At the centre of the vision is an agreement on what kind of democracy it is that people from all political backgrounds and aspirations can live with.
There will be give-and-take as groups and individuals who cherish different ideologies and practices try to find a new balance that will see the country moving on in peace.
But such dialogue, demands and compromises are what reconciliation is all about.
No comments:
Post a Comment