Group of 6 is no cure-all for stalemate

Group of 6 is no cure-all for stalemate

Do I want the six independent agencies to succeed in their latest attempt to mediate the political conflict?

The simple answer would be: Yes, I do, with all my heart.

If leaders of these highly esteemed organisations including the Election Commission, the Office of the Ombudsman and the National Economic and Social Advisory Council could somehow convince the caretaker government and protesters to set aside their differences and strike a deal for the future of Thailand, they would have delighted not just me but most people in the country.

At the back of my mind, however, a not-so-simple answer lurks. It starts with doubt that despite their good intentions, the six "independent" organisations do not have what it takes to inspire confidence, even among those who support their peace-brokering effort.

Do not forget that a large part of the current political conflict is rooted in an ideological difference between those who support liberal democracy with a strong executive arm and those who want vibrant checks-and-balances mechanisms.

Suffice to say the government is the first camp. It has always been in favour of strong government, to the point of ignoring dissenting voices and attempts to keep executive work in check.

The anti-government People’s Democratic Reform Committee (PDRC) is the latter, building its stance on an anti-corruption, pro-reform platform.

Needless to say, the six "independent" organisations belong more to the checks-and-balances’ side, which naturally make them appear closer in political inclination to the protesters than the government.

Why would the government trust these organisations to serve as referees then? It does not help either that the main broker for the six-organisation attempt is Election Commissioner Somchai Srisuttiyakorn.

If there is anything the government holds dearest and appears ready to defend at all costs, it’s the sanctity of an election. It has held nothing back in its attempts to push for the remaining polls to be held so the election can be completed and parliament can convene.

Mr Somchai, meanwhile, was once billed as the election commissioner who did not want an election. His earlier stance was a preference for the Feb 2 poll to be delayed rather than clashes among people who were for or against the poll.

This difference alone should be enough to show how far apart Mr Somchai stands from the government. It’s thus unlikely the government as a conflict partner will have faith in his impartiality.

With the lack of confidence even from one party as a basis for the truce attempt, it’s unlikely Mr Somchai will find success in his role as mediator. Besides, what is the point of mediation when leaders of both parties have actively sought to fuel discontent instead of seeking common ground?

Many ordinary people see that both sides of the political conflict have a point in what they are after — the country needs to stick to one-man-one-vote if it wants to stay as a democracy as the government says, but it also must have a strong monitoring system to keep administrative power in check, as demanded by the PDRC.

The problem is, instead of trying to understand their opponent’s point, both sides choose to entrench only their own, apparently incomplete, side of the argument.

Worse, they offer their artificially constructed and extremely flawed take on democracy to their followers and get them excited about a beacon of absolutism that does not exist.

On the government’s part, its hypnotism is apparent in the belief among supporters that if it wins an election, it can do no wrong.

The threat by a red-shirt group to take to the streets and "storm" Bangkok if caretaker premier Yingluck Shinawatra is found guilty in the rice-pledging scheme case by the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) is a case in point.

I am not saying that independent organisations, be they the NACC or the court, are beyond reproach. But if they are not doing their duties well, the red shirts should find ways to correct their performance. To say the government can't be prosecuted at all without considering the details of the case makes a mockery of the justice process.

The same is true with PDRC leader Suthep Thaugsuban. The dream he has been peddling, that by toppling the so-called "Thaksin regime" and implementing a reform process Thailand will become a corruption-free, highly competitive and fair country is an extremist vision that can’t come true.


Atiya Achakulwisut is Contributing Editor, Bangkok Post.

Atiya Achakulwisut

Columnist for the Bangkok Post

Atiya Achakulwisut is a columnist for the Bangkok Post.

Do you like the content of this article?
COMMENT (12)