Political reconciliation without collusion or conspiracy

The inherent cynicism isn’t totally groundless. Thai politicians have been known to use the formation of a “national reconciliation government” to ensure one another’s political survival and to share the loot, rather than to seek genuine solutions to national problems.
That explains the sceptical reactions when the Constitution Drafting Committee came up with the idea of a 15-member “independent commission” to promote national reconciliation. It smacks of an abortive move – or another attempt to compromise the principle of checks and balances in the national political scheme of things.
But Anek Laothammathat, head of the National Reconciliation Study Committee in the charter-drafting body, insists that the constitution writers are serious about putting the long-drawn-out conflicts behind us once a new election is held after this period of “national restoration” under military rule.
In this context, the key point in the proposed formula for national reconciliation is devising a mechanism in the new charter to “enable the conflicting parties to work together without pushing either side to be ‘government’ or ‘opposition’, even if both parties don’t really like each other”.
If neither party assumes the role of ruling party or opposition, that means they will have to work together based on a common platform for the national interest. That also means that “reconciliation” is not translated into “collusion” between political interest groups.
How that can be achieved is the big question. But the main elements to necessary to bringing about reconciliation will have to be there: Amnesty for political offences that don’t include corruption cases, and a new charter that isn’t viewed as biased against any particular political grouping.
The key word here is that the new reconciliation commission would be an “independent” body. The deciding factor would be the composition of the members on the panel. They must not only be “neutral” but also be seen to be “objective”. That is likely the most challenging task for the charter writers. One reason the country’s political divide has grown in the past few years is that the pool of “mediators” acceptable to both sides of the rift is shrinking.
But it all boils down to whether the political landscape under the new constitution can contribute to a political atmosphere that is both constructive and creative. The litmus test will be whether the conflicting parties can work together both within the new Parliament and in the government formed after the general election.
Prominent members of the reconciliation panel assure us that the proposed formula will be transparent and politically objective. There is, they say, no hidden agenda in favour of any particular party in the conflict. Besides, they will make sure that the new provisions in this regard won’t end up helping corrupt politicians slice up the cake of national budget at the taxpayer’s expense.
There is no doubting the good intentions. But the task ahead is extremely difficult and viable options are limited. Without a genuine and workable political formula for reconciliation both in the legislative and executive branches, our worst fears – that the country will return to uncontrollable chaos – will probably be confirmed once again.
Wisdom would suggest there are ample warnings of the nation being plunged into the abyss of chaos once again. But greed and mad hunger for power may yet push us back into that black hole.