Six years after the 2006 coup d'etat that plunged Thailand into a deep political abyss and economic stagnation, is the country ready to get out of its rut and start afresh?
The answer is clear from the King Prajadhipok's Institute's research on political reconciliation: Don't bet on it anytime soon.
The institute has been assigned by the House panel on political reconciliation to look for ways to help the parties in conflict establish common ground. The panel will forward the proposals for parliamentary consideration next month.
The researchers conducted in-depth interviews with 47 main players in the conflicts, including former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, in order to gauge their views on the causes of the conflicts and how to make national reconciliation possible.
Both the interviews and the current political atmosphere point to an uneasy truth _ there is no hope yet for national reconciliation since all the opposing parties are still stuck resolutely to their political agendas and refuse to accept the other side's concerns.
Hence the institute's main proposal: First and foremost, create a "reconciliation climate" by stopping all actions that fan up fear and distrust which could result in violent confrontation. For without a conciliatory atmosphere, reconciliation dialogue is impossible.
In investigating possible solutions, the institute also lists a number of policy options for public debate in order to establish common ground. They include how to deal with the findings about past violence, how to restore confidence in the judiciary through different ways to proceed with the defunct Assets Scrutiny Committee's rulings, and the different approaches required for political amnesty.
The institute is definitely correct about the lack of a reconciliation climate. Right after the study was unveiled, it was attacked with fiery and vitriolic words as a political tool of the government. The different policy options were torn to pieces although the institute researchers never stopped emphasising that the policy options were starting points for public debate and that efforts by any politicians to use one particular proposal to push for their agenda through a majority vote in the House would only widen the political divide.
Interestingly, the politicians seem to be ignoring the message from the King Prajadhipok study that disparity and power inequalities are an important root cause of political conflicts. The same message was given by political analyst Thirayuth Boonmi when he talked about what spurred the red shirt movement's growth.
Their similar concerns do not end there. Both suggested that the ruling administration refrain from using the "justice of the winner" to push for controversial political agendas such as rewriting the constitution. Political restraint, they agree, is crucial to avoiding another violent confrontation.
Both the King Prajadhipok's Institute and Mr Thirayuth also stressed the need for rational discussion on the role of the constitutional monarchy in the new political environment and the need to foster a culture of tolerance to opposing views amid a more open society.
The country should heed their recommendations for open dialogue, restraint, and tolerance to foster national reconciliation. But we also must realise that long-term stability cannot emerge when power is still centred in Bangkok. Unless there is structural reform toward political and administrative decentralisation to bridge disparities, politics will remain dangerously fickle.