In view of its controversy and divisiveness for Thai society, the amnesty bill has duly fallen by the wayside.
A protester waves a flag in front of the Democracy Monument with an anti-amnesty bill message on his scarf. POST TODAY
But the idea of having an amnesty as a mechanism to heal rifts and promote long-term reconciliation in Thailand should not be abandoned for good.
In countries attempting to escape from seemingly intractable conflicts, an amnesty is often proposed as a tool to assist reconciliation, create peace and help societies move on from the past.
Amnesty as a tool of peace and reconciliation has been used in places as diverse as Argentina, Northern Ireland and South Africa, with varying degrees of success.
In the aftermath of Argentina's "Dirty War" _ a domestic conflict in which the government was responsible for 30,000 "disappearances" of its own citizens as well as systematic arrest, torture and abductions of opposition or undesirable figures _ blanket amnesties were enacted with the aim of absolving government and military leaders of the crimes and human rights abuses they committed during the conflict.
The justification was that an amnesty is a necessary step to wipe the sins of the past and generate Argentina's transition to peace and reconciliation.
However, among the public this amnesty was widely deemed illegitimate. It only served to deepen divisions in society and complicate the overall judicial process, the consequences of which the country is still dealing with today.
For a country proposing the use of an amnesty, it must ensure it is guided by several key principles to avoid encountering the same pitfalls as Argentina.
It is essential that it be the product of open and honest negotiations between all of the stakeholders associated with the conflict and be part of a wider reconciliation programme aimed at protecting the rights of victims while also putting in place a foundation for peace and stability for the future.
Amnesty should not be the goal of a reconciliation process, but may be an instrument used to create a peaceful outcome. It should be a means to an end, not the end itself. Amnesty must not be seen as a ploy for vested interests. Under no circumstances should the goal of an amnesty be to whitewash crimes, absolve the responsibilities of specific individuals for their actions or to cover-up and forget what has occurred.
At the heart of any amnesty, there should be an unequivocal need to protect the rights of victims to pursue and know the truth about the crimes that have been committed. This must be delicately balanced with the need for a society to learn from and move towards forgiveness of violations committed in the past. This can be achieved by adding some kind of conditionality to the amnesty.
For example, during the conflict over the policy of apartheid in South Africa, both the government and opposition groups had been responsible for committing ever-escalating reciprocal acts of violence and abuses of human rights over a period of more than 40 years. A core part of the reconciliation process was the opportunity to apply for amnesty from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The TRC only granted an amnesty in cases strictly connected to the political conflict and only on the condition that the perpetrator had truthfully disclosed all of the facts.
From the outset of the reconciliation process, it was communicated that amnesty was not being used to absolve or ignore the crimes of perpetrators, but it was used to diffuse tensions in society and to lay down the foundations for enduring peace while also creating closure for the victims by giving them the right to truth.
In the Northern Ireland peace process, amnesty was granted with the condition of disarmament and non-recidivism, as well as public confession. It was in effect a suspended sentence dependent on future behaviour.
In other situations, there may be some set of actions that must be met by the perpetrators if amnesty is to be accorded.
For example, in East Timor conditionality took the form of community service, whereby perpetrators were required to be physically involved in the rebuilding process in the districts they had offended. In other contexts, financial reparations, formal apologies or acts of contrition may be appropriate.
Whatever conditions are attached to the amnesty, or whether a conditional amnesty is even appropriate, should be the outcome of extensive consultation, negotiation and agreement between the relevant stakeholders in society.
Every conflict is unique; the spectrum of crimes and why they were committed is largely dependent on the circumstances of the conflict and the perspectives of the participants. The scope of amnesty should not be decided by either the perpetrators or victims. The time period concerned, severity or types of crimes which would be covered, the individuals or groups who could apply for amnesty needs to be tailored for the circumstances of each conflict.
International treaties such as the Geneva Convention (1949) and the Rome Statute (1998) provide guidelines for dealing with the most egregious human rights abuses such as rape, murder and torture, but these may not be suitable for every society or situation. As there is no cookie-cutter guide from the international community to follow, it is up to all stakeholders in society to come together to decide where those lines are drawn and under what circumstances amnesty is appropriate.
It may be that granting amnesty is a key step in mending old disputes or that it is deemed essential to involve all sides of the divide in the process of peace-building and social healing. Or granting amnesty may be tantamount to an admission of guilt by all parties to the conflict or it may be a step taken to diffuse deeper divisions in society.
A non-negotiable blanket amnesty which is forced upon a society by one side of the divide which is driven by political or personal gain will only serve to reopen old wounds and reignite tensions. It is not an effective or legitimate means to build reconciliation.
Yet the notion of having some kind of an amnesty under conducive conditions is still sound and should be considered again to benefit Thailand's political future.
In other words, "amnesty" does not have to be a dirty word. It is ultimately a useful step towards creating enduring understanding, stability and peace.
Jacob Hogan is a research fellow at the Institute of Security and International Studies, Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University.