Amid the deep polarisation which has gripped society, it seems almost impossible to picture a future where both sides are willing to play by the same rules. Already, suggestions for “reconciliation” and “compromise” are being dismissed on the feeling that divisions in society and between the political parties seem too deeply ingrained to overcome.
A protester stands in front of a Thai national flag amid political stalemate. As rival parties refuse to back down in their power games, starting small on common grounds that benefit small people can pave way for future political compromise. AP/Sakchai Lalit
Eventually though, all sides of the conflict will have to realise that compromise is the only way to achieve peace, security and prosperity. A reconciliation process doesn’t need to start with a fully formed vision of an ideal, harmonious future. Instead it should be seen as a creating a shared commitment to a long-term process.
In the beginning, this means that starting with solving small and uncontested problems may be the best way to get the ball rolling. This was highlighted by Martti Ahtisaari, the former Finnish president and 2008 Nobel Peace Prize recipient, when he spoke in Bangkok last year about the prospects for reconciliation here.
He found during his experiences in places like Aceh, the Balkans, Northern Ireland and Namibia that one of the best ways to kick-start that process was for both sides to work together to find solutions to common issues. This allows trust and familiarity to be built between both sides, and creates an atmosphere of cooperation which can underpin foundations for future progress.
For example, during the Northern Ireland conflict, both the Republicans and Loyalists identified the need to create job opportunities for youths to improve communities and boost the economy. Amid all of the violence and animosity which had gripped the society, they were able to work together to try to resolve a shared issue. This kind of collaboration ultimately created the atmosphere which made the Good Friday Agreement possible. Similarly, the Aceh reconciliation process was kick-started when the Indonesian government and Free Aceh Movement found common ground when they collaborated on the post-tsunami rebuilding efforts.
Thailand too could start with the small.
Finding these avenues for compromise may seem tough, but the areas that could yield results have already been identified. These include: media reform, security reform, reducing economic and education inequality, and creating guidelines for the rights and responsibilities of protesters.
These areas for collaboration were identified by a number of reconciliation groups and truth commissions in the aftermath of the 2010 conflict, namely the Truth for Reconciliation Commission, King Prajadhipok’s Institute, the National Human Rights Commission, People’s Information Centre and Human Rights Watch.
In 2014, the roles may be somewhat reversed, but the core challenges facing the country — concerns over corruption, the political system and conduct of key political figures — are largely the same as in 2010.
Each group tackled the 2010 conflict from a different perspective, their investigations varied in quality and depth, and the recommendations of a number of the reports may have been shaped by the groups’ political agendas. Many had differing conclusions about controversial issues like amnesty, the “men in black”, and the culpability of the military and the government. These contrasts made the reports very easy targets.
Both sides of the political divide were quick to seize on the chance to dismiss the entirety of each report based on the conclusions of a few controversial issues. Despite the work of the reconciliation commissions, neither political party was willing to sign up to a reconciliation process that did not completely match their vision for the future, and were willing to torpedo the entire process to prevent the opposition from doing so.
Amid this, the fact that the reports shared common recommendations was entirely missed. Undisputed issues that need resolution were spread over a number of sectors.
First, reform of the media sector is urgent. Concerns over freedom of the media were shared by the reports. Furthermore, they identified the need to develop mechanisms for media self-censorship, improve the quality and neutrality of the media as well as educating the public about the role contested the media should play in society.
Second, the need for security reform, particularly when dealing with prolonged or violent domestic disturbances. The reports agreed that the military is not an appropriate tool to respond to domestic issues. Additional training for police officers as well as specialist units should be developed so they can ensure that demonstrations do not get out of hand.
Third, there were shared conclusions on some of the core issues leading to dispute. The reports each identified problems such as widespread economic inequalities, a lack of faith in the political system and the need to improve education standards.
Finally, there were shared conclusions on the rights and conduct of protesters. Freedom of assembly is an essential right, however it does come with some caveats. Protesters have a right to express their opinions, but they must not engage in hate speech and should avoid disrupting non-protesters for an undue period of time. Agreeing to guidelines for demonstrators is another potential first step.
While it’s true there are no easy solutions to any of these issues, that they need to be resolved is disputed by neither side. They can only be solved with the collective efforts of leaders, politicians and ordinary citizens from all sides of the divide. Furthermore, Mr Ahtisaari’s experiences show that if belligerents are able to collaborate and engage in this kind of policymaking, trust can be built, and great strides towards peace and reconciliation can be made.
Starting small could be helpful. It is in the first stages of a reconciliation process where the conflict seems most intractable and resolution furthest away. The present focus should not be on the end result, but in finding ways that people from all sides of the divide can strive to find common ground by solving some of these shared problems and kick-start the process towards a peaceful future.
Jacob Hogan is a research fellow at the Institute of Security and International Studies, Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University.