‘Use of Article 44 not the right way for reconciliation’

RECONCILIATION is unlikely to be achieved through the use of absolute power under Article 44 of the interim charter, political observers said yesterday.

They said a harmonisation panel could be set up to facilitate reconciliation and such a move, through legal or executive means, should work. They also agreed that amnesty did not necessarily need to be a part of the reconciliation plan.

The comments came in response to a remark by Constitution Drafting Commission (CDC) chairman Meechai Ruchupan, who said a reconciliation body could be initiated by General Prayut Chan-o-cha as PM or as leader of the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO), without having to include it in the new constitution.

“It’d be funny to use Article 44. Reconciliation is a spiritual thing. It cannot be achieved through some sort of coercion,” said Gothom Arya, a scholar and non-violence advocate.

He said the issue was not urgent and a panel could be set up through law with the support of the National Legislative Assembly or through a government order.

Veteran political scientist Sombat Thamrongthanyawong yesterday voiced a similar view, saying Prayut’s order as prime minister should suffice and Article 44 would be unnecessary.

Deputy Prime Minister Wissanu Krea-ngam said moving a bill on the matter would be a good option. He said including the setting up of such a body in the constitution would only make it “untidy”.

He believed that the body set up under Article 44 would outlast the interim constitution and that could pose a problem. Wissanu explained that the NCPO would only last until the next election.

The deputy PM said the key to reconciliation lies in people’s hearts. “If the hearts are determined to reconcile, no facilitating panel would be necessary,” he said.

Gothom said reconciliation starts in the mind. “Eliminate the bias, especially among the powers-that-be. You should not put all the blame on one particular party … Put yourself in their shoes sometimes. That is reconciliation,” he said.

However, the reconciliation process tends to be associated with granting amnesty. It is deemed a reset button that clears everything and allows the game to restart.

Wissanu remarked that if reconciliation were about amnesty, a bill would have been passed. Rather, he added, reconciliation could be achieved without the work of an amnesty bill.

“We don’t know for sure if pardons could bring about reconciliation,” he said. 

According to Wissanu, former prime minister and former Democrat Party leader Chuan Leekpai also said he didn’t believe reconciliation could be achieved that way. He added that involved agents have to sit down and think what the reconciliation was all about and how to secure it before selecting the means.

Gothom said granting amnesty could have both positive and negative impacts.

There are chances that it would work, but it could also turn out like what had happened in 2013, he said, referring to a blanket amnesty bill proposed under Yingluck Shinawatra’s administration that led to street protests and a national upheaval.

Ekachai Srivilas, a former member of the now-defunct National Reform Council (NRC) and a non-violence advocate, said reconciliation and granting amnesty were different issues.

“Reconciliation is about preventing further conflicts. We cannot just press the reset button and make everything go away. There are processes that the related parties have to go through,” said Ekachai, who was part of the NRC’s reconciliation study panel.

“There is a truth-seeking step. Besides, the culprits have to admit that they have done wrong and enter the judicial process. Reconciliation comes last and it involves amelioration, restoration and absolution,” he explained.

However, he agreed that the establishment of a reconciliation panel should begin under the current government. He did not think it should be postponed until the next elected government, which is likely to be led by a political party that is involved in the previous disputes, and thus unlikely to take reconciliation action.

Meanwhile, Seri Suwanpanont, chairman of the National Reform Steering Assembly’s political committee, said yesterday that he was not worried about establishment of a reconciliation panel, but rather he was more concerned about its effectiveness.

“Whether it will work or not depends on the disputants. If they are ready or agree to talk, then maybe there’s a chance,” he said.

Also yesterday, Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva said he saw no need for setting up a reconciliation committee. He said the government should urgently come up with measures to prevent violent conflicts from happening again, and it should end past conflicts by issuing amnesty for ordinary protesters who committed light offences while attending demonstrations.

“An amnesty law should be issued as soon as possible so that the ordinary protesters will not be taken hostage in a bid to seek amnesty for people who committed severe offences during protests,” he said.