Truth, lies and reconciliation

What caused Thailand’s political conflict, which is still threatening to tear up the country, has been the subject of much debate, and the debate itself has aggravated the divide. The Truth for Reconciliation Commission of Thailand (TCRT) has an unenviable, if not ironic, task, because whatever “truth” it finds out, the first victim could be the already fragile peace. How can “truth” reconcile a country wrecked by different ideas of what went wrong?

The TRCT has achieved the easier part of its job. It has managed to maintain a large degree of neutrality despite the shift in political power after the July election. The panel’s latest report includes proposals for both sides of the political divide. It calls for fair treatment of “political prisoners”, most of them red-shirt members, and puts the share scandal committed by Thaksin Shinawatra as the root cause of the confrontation. A good balance has been struck although, under the circumstances, that may turn out to be in vain.

The toughest challenge for the TRCT and Thailand is how to make the rival camps accept the latest report in its totality. That’s an enormous ask in a political climate where people only see what they want to see. This attitude will prevail in the face of the TRCT report. The awkward reactions from both ends of the polarity confirm that peace is probably as elusive as ever.

To sum up the report, it proposes leniency for criminal suspects or convicts believed to be driven by ideology. At the same time, it suggests that the infamous share concealment case of Thaksin should be reviewed. The share case was mentioned only briefly at the very end of the report, but the panel made very clear that its consequences – either pro- and anti-Thaksin – blended into a mega crisis that all but ruined Thailand.

Set up by the Abhisit government and now having to work under the Yingluck administration, the TRCT has not had an easy time. Its latest report reflects attempts to maintain integrity in difficult circumstances. Against all odds, the panel has put forward a balanced perspective. The bad news is that balanced perspectives have proved to be an endangered species that may need to mutate to survive.

As expected, the Yingluck government has been silent about the suggested revival of the Thaksin share case. The Democrats, meanwhile, have questioned the wisdom of decriminalising people who have allegedly committed serious criminal offences in the name of ideology. And if the TRCT’s proposed leniency covers those who ordered and carried out crackdowns on red-shirt protesters, we all know where the opposition will come from.

Then there is one highly contentious issue that the TRCT leaves largely untouched. For good or bad reasons, the existence of the mysterious “men in black” and their role in the political violence last year escaped the panel’s scrutiny. Both sides of the political divide have been accusing each other of masterminding the armed element – which many blame for triggering the bloodshed – and they will continue to do so.

Should the truth about the men in black be left untold for reconciliation’s sake? The lingering ambiguity seems to serve nobody in particular, but it does help keep the political crisis from exploding anew. Whether or not that is good for political peace in the long run is hard to tell. While the TRCT proposes that protesters who blocked the streets or invaded public places be treated as politically-driven offenders, the men in black did far more than that. They carried assault rifles and were blamed for several deaths.

The commission is clear about its call for “transitional justice”, without which reconciliation will be impossible. How the men in black, or their acts at least, will fit into the process will remain one of the biggest questions facing the whole of Thailand. After all, they represent the ugliest side of this crisis, showing everyone how far Thais will go to grab or maintain political power. 

This crisis has been feeding on itself. In fact, it has been feeding on everything – words, actions, ideas and proposals. Truths have become lies and vice versa. And not that it matters, because nothing has been used with reconciliation in view, anyway. People believe whatever will galvanise their beliefs, and discard whatever may weaken them. What is worshipped by one side is demonised by the other. The nation may have gone too far down the divisive path to be jolted by truth into making a U-turn.

If truth is always the first casualty of war, peace and lies can be an odd couple. Which leaves the question of whether reconciliation and truth can really coexist.