Pardons seen as best option for country

A pardon or an amnesty? After debating which of the two is a better solution to bring about reconciliation after the country has struggled through a decade of a political conflict that saw riots and crises, charter drafters have decided to opt for a pardon.
The reason for this is amnesty is seen as tantamount to “whitewashing” people’s crimes. It would mean that acts committed by wrongdoers would be erased and history effectively rewritten.
A pardon, however, means a person did something wrong, and that will never change, but they are forgiven and partly or wholly exempted from punishment handed down by a court.
If the Yingluck government had pushed for the pardon option, it may not have been brought down. The fact that the previous government pushed for an amnesty bill as it sought to “delete” the wrongdoing committed by politicians resulted in a dramatic backlash. It underestimated public sentiment against a blanket amnesty and triggered a mass protest that led to its downfall.
People opposed the whitewashing of politicians because the individuals in question would be able to re-enter politics. Their political and election rights would be given back to them as if they had done nothing wrong, despite them having taken an oath to work for the public with integrity and morality.
It is thought this is the reason why the charter writers decided to take a different approach. To reduce public opposition, they resolved that no one would get “whitewashed” through an amnesty but pardons would be offered to wrongdoers involved in political conflicts over recent years on the condition they admit guilt and accept some punishment.
There are other stark differences between pardon and amnesty. The decision to pardon anyone rests with the King. Pardon requests proceed when a petition is filed to the King.
A pardon can be done on a case by case basis, individually or as a group and normally takes place during auspicious royal occasions. Pardons are granted following a court’s final judgement and a wrongdoer has received some punishment.
Amnesty, however, must be initiated by a legislative branch, and Parliament must pass an act with retroactive effect that would help wrongdoers, as their offences would be erased. In an urgent situation, an amnesty could be issued as a Royal decree that must be approved by Parliament. And it could be granted without a court trial having ended.
Under the reconciliation plan, the process to select people who will be pardoned starts by setting up a body called the Independent Committee to Promote National Reconciliation. The committee will comprise no more than 15 qualified figures who are politically neutral or leaders of rival factions.
The selection process for the panel has not been written in the charter.
Recruiting these 15 people will not be easy because few people may want a post seen as a political “hot potato’’.
The independent panel will be tasked with finding the root causes of political conflicts, identifying damage incurred and proposing  solutions to the Cabinet or Parliament.
It will have to coordinate with the leaders of conflicting parties to iron out their differences and implement rehabilitation measures or organise compensation for those affected.
Creating a mechanism to bring about national reconciliation has never been done in a Thai constitution. The charter writers are committed to incorporating this entity and mechanism in the next charter, but achieving true reconciliation is not just about the law and the sincerity or sacrifice of people in power – political rivals and the people will also play a crucial role.