The myth of neutrality in Thai politics

Thai citizens can be forgiven for feeling sceptical at the proposal from Constitution Drafting Committee chief Borwornsak Uwanno that a national reconciliation committee be set up to resolve ongoing political disputes.
Borwornsak said the committee would be authorised to propose pardons for people involved in political conflict, though he does not know who would want amnesty.
It seems that both the CDC and Thais in general are still a long way from consensus on the nature of the conflict. Few people understand that it stems from differences between the two major parties, the Pheu Thai and the Democrats. Some insist that the war is between the red-shirt United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD) and the People’s Democratic Reform Committee (PDRC). Many wonder if the yellow-shirt People’s Alliance for Democracy is still alive and whether it might activate more conflict.
Some see the actions of former premier Thaksin Shinawatra as the root cause of the conflict, while others blame his younger sister and successor, Yingluck Shinawatra, for all the Kingdom’s problems.   
Meanwhile and more pertinently, there is talk of a conflict between the urban elite and the rural poor. Certain academics trace the seed of the trouble to social inequality, explaining that a Bangkok establishment controls the majority of the wealth and power and refuses to share it more evenly with disadvantaged citizens. Intellectuals suggest that the dispute between reds and yellows is only the tip of an iceberg that goes much deeper. 
Many Thais see the role of the military in politics as problematic. Some reckon the Army staged the coup in order to end the violent stand-off between the PDRC and the Pheu Thai-led government under Yingluck. Others, however, claim the military tagged along with the PDRC and the Democrats in order to seize power for the Bangkok establishment. Most foreign observers have identified the military as part of the problem, not the solution.
Major international powers regard the May 22 coup as a violation of democracy rather than as a solution to political conflict. They have criticised the action, suspended assistance and curtailed relations, while calling on the junta to restore democracy quickly.
Meanwhile the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) has failed to deliver a clear picture of the conflict. The junta has repeatedly claimed it is a neutral in mediating the conflict. But outside observers have witnessed its cabinet, reform council and legislative body behave like “winners”, making rules to control and punish the “losers”.
Last year CDC chief Borwornsak and other members of the junta’s government joined the PDRC whistleblower movement and called for military intervention to topple Yingluck’s government.
Now he is advocating the launch of a mechanism to promote national reconciliation, including a neutral middleman to resolve conflicts between warring political factions.
Who might be chosen for the role of middleman? We can likely rule out Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha, on grounds that he lacks the required neutrality. The same goes for any member of the armed forces.
 Meanwhile members of the judiciary have been taking sides for a long time, so they would seem unsuitable as neutrals whose decisions could be trusted by both sides.
In reality, it’s not worth wasting time on this quest. Amid our longstanding polarised conflict, there is no non-partisan figure left that might help resolve the dispute.