Pointing out paths to peace from the brink of violence

With the Kingdom descending closer and closer to yet another round of violent political confrontation, three peace experts offer their thoughts on the political hatred now engulfing the country. Stressing the urgent need to understand the roots of the problem, they offer ideas for a peaceful solution to the current crisis.

 

Gothom Arya

Director of the Mahidol University Research Centre for Peace:

I think there are two or three related issues. 

First, the fear [of political and social change]. 

Second, a widespread feeling that what is happening is not legitimate. Third, a dichotomy in thinking that has led us to view things as good versus evil, while refusing to accept diversity and differences. This led to the creation of a [popular] discourse of stark division.

In a way it’s an understandable effect [of conflicts over the years]. But it’s hard to heal, and means society is out of sync. Hatred operates in a context of beliefs and emotions. The feelings of injustice, partisanship and numerous events [over the past seven years] are linked to structural economic issues.

So-called double-standards and social disparity have compounded the situation. All these led to the portrayal of opponents as evil and subhuman – because we tend to unleash violence on those whom we regard as less than human.

Life is most precious, I hope we can recognise this and see the humanity in everyone. Humans possess both positive and negative traits, good and bad characteristics. Recognise this, and we won’t engage in [political hate speech] through character assassination that diminishes the humanity of a person. Let us destroy this bias and not focus on hatred. Killing won’t put an end to anything.

 

General Ekkachai Srivilas

Director of the Office of Peace and Governance at the King Prajadhipok Institute:

Two or three factors have led to the current level of political hatred. First, we have never been taught to listen to those who think differently. We see those who think differently as our enemies rather than as people who might offer extra dimensions to our one-sided thoughts. Second, we’re taught to be competitive under capitalism, so politics is aimed at defeating others. For example, at the Asean level, we don’t have the sense of growing together with our neighbours.

Another factor is that we do not accept rules and regulations – and I am referring to both sides here. All this could lead to civil war. The mass media has also played a role. The partisan media are offering beliefs, and not just on television but on Facebook and Twitter. The media today are not offering the truth. 

This state of society is not normal. Ours is a society rooted in patronage, and few of us think as independently as do people in the West. We have nepotism and clan-based loyalty – phenomena that contradict democracy.

The solution might seem difficult but it does exist: the judicial system must be impartial. In truth though, it’s hard for any human being to be impartial, even an experienced monk. And it’s clear today that some courts and so-called independent bodies under the Constitution are one-sided.

As for elections, the patronage system ensures that collusion is commonplace. This leads to corruption.

[Both political sides] can propagandise as much as they like, but what will the country gain by it? Both sides must be able to answer that question. And after answering it, how can they insist on continuing with [their campaigns of hatred]?

 

Eakpant Pindavanija

Lecturer at Mahidol University’s Institute of Human Rights and Peace Studies:

 Political hatred is part of a learning process. First, stories that ignite strong feelings are spread – the Burmese burning down Ayutthaya, or tales of clashes between city dwellers and rural folk, or that the military and the state are imposing their power on the people. These gradually form as discourses.

Political hatred is thus “normal” given the context and situation. But if you ask whether there’s a need to change this situation, then the answer is yes.

We normally don’t bother to listen to opinions different from our own. Our notion of “Thainess” is very restrictive: we say we must love the King. But Thais are ethnically and culturally diverse, so we don’t have to be identical. (The frequently expressed notion that we shouldn’t fight against one another because all of us are Thai only reinforces the restrictive notion of Thainess.)

In the short term, each group must be clear about what it wants to achieve. When the Democrat-led anti-government protesters say they want to overthrow the “Thaksin regime” they must be clear as to what they truly want. Otherwise the demonstrations will go on and on without end.

All parties must try to learn a new way of managing conflicts. We can exchange views freely, and also benefit from the experience of other countries. People who express a different political view should not be automatically shouted down.

However, now that protesters have occupied the Finance Ministry and other government compounds, the chance of there being bloodshed in the next few days seems high. Reaching a peaceful solution is becoming more difficult.