Reconciliation, is the real challenge, not amnesty
Play
An amnesty provision in the new charter, suggested by the chairman of the constitution subcommittee on reconciliation, is likely to be shot down amid rising opposition to the idea.
Anek Laothamatas, who is chairman of the subcommittee working on the chapter on reconciliation to be incorporated in the new constitution, had suggested amnesty for political protesters from 2005 to 2014, citing that it might be a way to true reconciliation.
Protest leaders and military officers could be included in the provision.
Soon after he had voiced his idea, many sides, including fellow Constitution Drafting Committee (CDC) members and leaders from conflicting groups, countered his proposal.
What was of the greatest concern to them was the idea of amnesty could reignite the conflicts.
The Yingluck Shinawatra government was toppled by the May 22 coup after prolonged protests by the People’s Democratic Reform Committee (PDRC) against the “Sud soi” bill granting amnesty to rival parties who were prosecuted and sentenced during the political turmoil over the past eight years, including fugitive former premier Thaksin Shinawatra.
The suggestion of amnesty tends to revive fears in people of another looming crisis.
The wound on the political body from the blanket amnesty bill sponsored by Pheu Thai lawmakers last year, which triggered the turmoil that lasted almost six months, has still not healed.
Perhaps, Anek’s amnesty proposal has come at the wrong place and at the wrong time although his intention may be to use amnesty as the means towards the end, which is reconciliation.
Granting amnesty is one thing but promoting reconciliation quite another.
The public and all parties concerned would totally support amnesty for ordinary protesters – many of whom are facing charges, some even ending up behind bars, while the leaders have got away scot-free.
Promoting reconciliation must involve not only the followers but also their leaders.
Although the country right now is in a situation where conflicting groups will not be able to cause any chaos due to martial law, there is no guarantee that once martial law is lifted such conflicts and disputes will not reoccur.
The current situation can be considered a state of ceasefire, and it won’t be hard to imagine them at each other’s throats once the current curbs are lifted.
While reconciliation would mean the conflicting parties bury the past and start afresh, one is yet to see a spirit of give and take.
Reconciliation seems an impossible dream because many of us do not realise the meaning of compromise or even forgiveness. Rather, what we remember most are the blanket amnesty bill, the PDRC, red-shirts and the junta. And the belittling manner in which these words are used seems to signify that there “cannot be a reconciliation with the enemy”.
The CDC undoubtedly realises this huge challenge in drafting the new charter, including Anek who is responsible for the chapter on reconciliation.
Anek was worried that terms like amnesty and reconciliation had acquired a negative perspective in the minds of the public hence he has now shifted his goals to drafting the charter in a way as to promote reconciliation by incorporating articles in the new Constitution.
How to transform the charter drafters’ ideas on reconciliation into reality and make the public cooperate with their plans will prove to be the real test. As of now, no one can say with any certainty whether the attempt would be a success and pave the way for a better and peaceful society.
