Reconciliation has been highlighted as a priority by the current government, as well as the previous government. There seems to be broad agreement, in general terms, that more effort is needed to move Thailand further along the path to reconciliation.
A protester wears a white mask with a map of Thailand and flags on it during a rally to oppose the government’s amnesty bill. Despite plenty of talk about national reconciliation, it is still not clear what exactly that might entail. PATIPAT JANTHONG
What is not so clear is what is meant by reconciliation in Thailand. Is it everyone referring to the same thing when they emphasise the importance of a reconciliation platform?
My experience in other countries is that the word "reconciliation" may in fact mean different things to different people.
One common mistake, I believe, is to call on the need for "reconciliation" as a means to argue for a policy of forgetting: to turn the page on the past, to wipe clear all past sins and transgressions. This has sometimes led to the proclaimed justification for awarding amnesty to persons responsible for egregious acts. As a result, the word "reconciliation" has quickly become seen as a negative, tainted word.
Indeed, this form of "reconciliation based on forgetting" is usually rejected by victims, and in my view is an unacceptable and disrespectful approach.
A second, perhaps even more pernicious, trend I have seen is that of "reconciliation by coercion". When people are told they must reconcile, it is almost guaranteed to fail, and may well make the situation worse.
A final example of the misuse, in my view, of the concept of "reconciliation" is an approach best described as "overcoming differences by covering them up, or denying that they exist". Thus I am arguing that reconciliation is not best achieved through forgetting, coercion, or covering up. What does this suggest, then, about a more positive notion of this word? In short, what might reconciliation best look like, if it is to be achieved?
The best examples of reconciliation, from around the world, are those that focus on a process, and not an end point. It may be that reconciliation is not something that can be reached, per se, but rather is a path that one begins on, and then works very hard to continue down.
To begin down this path, and to strengthen and deepen the journey, many different kinds of initiatives are possible, and are open to the imagination, creativity and political commitment of those in a position to give this shape. This is also something that is highly dependent on national context and culture, and it would be inappropriate to import exact models from elsewhere.
An example of a process-led reconciliation programme can be seen in Liberia, where a national truth commission suggested an ambitious, long-term programme of community discussions. These are referred to as "Palava Hut" discussions and draw on well-rooted indigenous practices.
In East Timor, community elders brokered agreements between perpetrators and communities, after a period of political violence, to allow the reintegration of wrongdoers. This led to apologies and arrangements of community service to repay for the physical harm they had done, such as rebuilding destroyed buildings.
In South Africa, the Nelson Mandela government supported the Truth and Reconciliation Commission even when it was revealing the most painful parts of the history of the African National Congress (ANC) liberation movement, as it became clear the ANC had also committed serious abuses while in opposition to the apartheid regime.
Over several years of public hearings, one fascinating and surprising aspect became clear: those persons who admitted to wrongs, and who had the strength to apologise, ended up stronger, both politically and personally. Those who continued to deny _ and there were important examples where members of the apartheid regime were simply unable to acknowledge their wrongs _ seemed to be left outside the political fabric of the new South Africa.
Let us then look at the question of what the ingredients might be of a programme or policy that leads a country down a reconciliation path?
First, it is essential that the direction of this path is not pointed towards a specific political endpoint. In other words, if there is a hidden agenda, it won't work. "Reconciliation" can never mean "overcoming or fooling the opposition in order to achieve one's own political purposes".
Instead, the aim must legitimately be to build trust between parties, identify common interests, and work to build these common interests over time.
Second, reconciliation cannot be rushed. While there should be no delay in getting started, the process itself must be treated with respect and care. It must be based on communication, on listening, on carefully crafting a process that leads towards mutual interests, engaging the interests across the political aisle.
Third, concrete measures can be taken in the area of political or legal reform, recognition and apology, economic empowerment, and development.
Many specific measures were recommended by Thailand's Truth for Reconciliation Commission which offers a strong starting point. Recommendations in the reports of the People's Information Centre and King Prajadhipok Institute echoed similar themes to the commission, and should be carefully considered.
Allow me to return briefly to the subject of amnesty, an issue of considerable interest to Thailand at the moment.
I would suggest that any proposal for amnesty should abide by certain basic principles: it should be respectful of victims, it should not be seen as serving specific political interests, and it should be attentive to fair process. Both the process of crafting the parameters of an amnesty, and the process of how exactly the amnesty will be applied.
For example, while an amnesty may waive criminal responsibility for certain crimes, it should never take away the rights of victims to know the truth. This suggests that investigations may still be necessary.
In most national contexts, there are certain acts which can reasonably receive amnesty or pardon. The controversy around the amnesty bill in Thailand _ the fact that many victims' families have expressed concerns _ should give pause. As a foreigner looking in, I know the hard work must be done by Thais, but I would hope these basic principles could be met.
The framing principle for all of this, I would suggest, should be a commitment to democratic principles. True democratic space must be assured.
There should naturally and simultaneously be competition in the political space. Political parties will of course have different ideas of what should be done. To allow healthy democratic debate, there must be respect for the rules of the democratic game. This will be seen in the space for public campaigning, lobbying, debating and in fair governance.
However, at the heart of political difference, there must be a common interest accepted by all: putting first the interests of a peaceful and democratic country that respects the rights of all. It is through this overall vision that the path of reconciliation might best be found.
Excerpts from a speech by Priscilla Hayner, Senior Adviser, Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue, at the Uniting for the Future Conference in Bangkok yesterday.