Any 'peace talks' must be open to all

It’s becoming increasingly clear that reconciliation and reform are two different objectives, and that if one of them succeeds, the other might fail. The opposing sides in the political conflict have no common ground, to the extent that they adhere to two different interpretations of the term “justice”.

Thaksin Shinawatra’s camp this week mooted the idea of holding “peace talks” with Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha. The idea was ridiculous for several reasons, not least because Prayut’s government would risk doom by agreeing to such a meeting. 

But, even if the government went ahead with the talks and somehow managed to survive the storm of criticism that would ensue, our national strife is no longer just about the leaders, elected or otherwise. Also weighing in on the outcome are the red shirts, the yellow shirts, academics of various mindsets and the media, particularly the divisive and vociferous social networks. 

Prayut, Thaksin, Yingluck Shinawatra, Suthep Thaugsuban and Abhisit Vejjajiva might somehow end up sharing hugs and clinking champagne glasses, all past animosity forgiven, but even that far-fetched outcome would have little difference in the long term.

Thaksin, of course, wants to prove to his foes and the world that he’s innocent on all charges levelled against him, which means he would accept nothing short of a complete wiping of the slate. He would be unlikely to settle for clemency alone, since that would amount to mere forgiveness, when what he and his youngest sister need is for the past to be forgotten. Perhaps more importantly for Thaksin, mere clemency would dash any hope of getting back the money seized from his bank accounts following his ouster.

“Justice”, for opponents of the Shinawatras, demands that Thaksin admit the Ratchadapisek land purchase amounted to abuse of power, that corruption plagued the rice price-pledging scheme, and that other government policies he advocated or initiated either contravened the law or were part of some hidden self-serving agenda.

All that “reform” and “reconciliation” have in common is that both are heading toward deadlock – unless, that is, certain people agree to make significant sacrifices. 

By and large, we sense among Thaksin’s opponents an impatience with the cautious process of democracy, whereas the Thaksin camp says democracy was never given enough time to shed its faults and begin functioning properly. Ironically, Prayut’s controversial rule is facing time constraints as well. Its reform-reconciliation agenda ostensibly has about one year to be hammered out in detail, accepted by the public and turned into functioning reality.

We see fewer signs of progress than signals we are headed back to Square One. If Yingluck is convicted of the crime of which she’s now accused, the situation becomes direr still. None of Thailand’s critics overseas regard her or her brother as embodying democratic ideals, but their symbolic diplomatic clout remains formidable.

It must be evident to all by now that our strife is no longer in the sole control of a few high-profile politicians or military people. We need to re-evaluate our approach to its solution on that basis. If “peace talks” are to be held, they must not take place between chiefs in secret, least of all those who sparked the misery in the first place. They cannot be our saviours. 

The solution will come in an effort involving everyone who has made a sacrifice in this terrible affair.