A panel of the military-appointed National Reform Steering Assembly (NRSA) has made yet another attempt to restore national unity through forgiveness. Once again, the proposal is bound to fail. Worse, the reform panel's proposal will make the political divide both deeper and wider. Before the committee could even make its official proto-amnesty proposal to the nation, red-shirt leaders were complaining to the media that it was one-sided, in favour of the old yellow-shirt movement, the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD).
This could mean one of two things, or a combination. It is possible the special committee on national unity has failed to understand the underlying problem. Equally, its members were simply unable to come to grips with just what sort of programme is needed to achieve actual forgiveness and amnesty. In either case, or both, committee chairman Seree Suwanphanont can take solace in the fact that he is hardly the first to bring an almost certainly doomed proposal before the disunited political factions and their supporters.
Mr Seree told the media his proposal is not actually an amnesty proposal. For one thing, it comes with conditions that can be more likened to parole. Those already convicted of certain politically linked crimes would be freed, but put under supervision. Any back-pedalling, and the original penalties would kick in.
If this already sounds somewhat convoluted and even unenforceable -- what, for example, would be considered recidivist? -- Mr Seree's committee had further confusion. The panel specifically named examples of "crimes" that could be forgiven. These include blocking roads or access to state offices and storming an airport (this is a key "example"). Such actions at the height of political unrest could be forgiven.
Mr Seree brought out a point which has angered the red shirts in the past, and within hours did so yet again. Enter, predictably, Jatuporn Prompan, leader of the red-shirt United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD). All very well, he complained as he has done so often in the past, to bring in a new law to forgive specific actions by PAD leaders and supporters such as occupying terminals at both Suvarnabhumi and Don Mueang airports to oppose then-prime minister Somchai Wongsawat. Why are there no such specific examples cited for the UDD and supporters?
Now, Mr Jatuporn omits over his own reference here. What he means, however, is why there will be no amnesty under this or other proposals for his supporters in prison or charged with arson and violent attacks during the 2010 uprising against the then-premier Abhisit Vejjajiva. And he is right. Amnesty proposals up until now have all drawn some sort of line between actions of aggressive civil disobedience and violent civil disorder.
Most reasonable people believe such a line is necessary. But some do not. It is a fact that every proposal for amnesty including Mr Seree's has widened the political rift and stirred up disunity. Another fact is that the only amnesty programmes that have worked in recent history have forgiven all actions even remotely linked to politics. Cambodia provides an example where only a few leaders were held responsible. In South Africa, hearings and confessions led to amnesty for all.
Amnesty proposals must be inclusive, and must be seen by all parties to be fair. Trying to combine legal actions with amnesty is bound to fail. Real political amnesty means nearly all crimes must be forgiven. Otherwise, all sides will be opposed. Attempts to find acceptable amnesty must continue, but they have not yet succeeded.