South conflict must be tackled at the root

A statement from Sukri Hari, a leading member of the MARA Patani, that he preferred to deal with the military rather than a democratically elected government has rubbed many people the wrong way, especially the supporters of a new generation of political parties and leaders who were looking for an entry point to resolve this conflict.
Sukri went so far as to call for an intervention by the head of the Thai state to resolve this conflict. It wasn’t clear if Sukri was still committed to complete independence for the Malays of Patani and if so, an intervention by the Royal Palace would mean granting the region full independence.
Or was he suggesting that the Palace could help push for a win-win settlement, which could mean a sort of autonomy or special administrative status for this historically contested region? 
Regardless of what Sukri has in his head, the colour-coded political crisis that has enveloped the nation should be a good lesson on how not to exploit the revered institution for political gains.
Not only does it politicise the Palace, but a political crisis also opens the door for a military intervention. History has shown us, repeatedly, that Thai generals are no white knights. Their lack of sophistication on how to deal with sensitive matters, like race relations, and understanding of the complexities of the modern world, make them look more like neanderthals than a group of liberators. 
Sukri is the leading figure from the MARA Patani, an umbrella organisation made up of a number of long-standing separatist movements that surfaced in the 1960s but went under in the late 1980s and early 1990s. 
Surkri claimed to represent the Barisan Revolusi Nasional (BRN). But it is an open secret that his participation did not have the endorsement of the BRN ruling council – the Dewan Pimpinan Parti (DPP).
Thailand, and Malaysia in its capacity as the facilitator of the peace talks, have been trying hard to get the DPP’s participation but to no avail. 
These stakeholders believe that if the BRN is involved and the DPP gives its blessings, a solution would be within sight. 
Ironically, these stakeholders can’t seem to understand that this conflict is much more than armed men shooting at or blowing up government soldiers and police.
Instead of waiting for the BRN and its DPP to come on board, perhaps they should look at their own platform and agenda.
MARA Patani is supposed to be a political entity but what was its  stance on the Thai Constitution that was widely rejected by Malay Muslims in the far South?
They desperately want the people to accept them as their representatives but one has to wonder where their legitimacy comes from. How about pushing for a regional assembly that could provide them with the needed rubber stamp so they can wholeheartedly say that they are “of the people, by the people, and for the people”?
At least the BRN has guns and bombs as a bargaining chip. One has to wonder what does MARA Patani have to be in a position to bargain with the Thais.
Negotiations and political violence aside, all parties must not overlook the root causes of the conflict. BRN and MARA Patani are not the root cause but the symptom of failed negotiations for peaceful coexistence between the Malays of Patani and the Thai state.
The Thai state and society and the Malays of Patani had enjoyed a comfort level that fell apart after the Bangkok government tried to push their constructed narrative and identity upon the local Muslims to the point that they felt their faith was being compromised.
Armed insurgency came half a century after the border was drawn and seven sultans were forced to step down and replaced by governors from Bangkok.
Patani Malays did not challenge Thailand’s sovereignty then. The schism was caused by the failure of our policy of assimilation that came at the expense of their religious identity.
It makes no sense to try to resolve this conflict without addressing the root causes.