It's that same cycle again. A grassroots protest petitioning the state to pay attention to their grievances, then rounds of negotiation and bargaining after stiff reluctance, a promise or promises by the state, sometimes with a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). Mostly the protesters, satisfied, agree to return home.
This is what we witnessed after the recent protests staged by P-Move, which represents a network of grassroots, civic groups and scholars on land conflicts.
The recent protest followed the friendship walk with groups of demonstrators marching from Bangkok to the Northeast, raising a number of policy issues with locals. But it brought no changes.
Ploenpote Atthakor is editorial pages editor, Bangkok Post.
This time, the negotiators agreed to put an end to their 10-day street protests. Their demands over land conflicts seemed to be well considered in the meeting with the state.
Boon Sae-Joong, a coordinator for P-Move, told the media that there was common ground between the group and the authority and they had found and a constructive way to solve the problems.
"We have placed our hope in the military regime that they will have the sincerity to deal with these problems. Yet, we will closely monitor the promises they have made. We are ready to resume our protest if there is no progress."
But it's too early for the grassroots villagers to celebrate. No, not yet. I believe P-Move knows that. The grassroots people know that.
What appeared to be a willingness to find a solution could just be a tactic to buy time, send the protestors home and ease the pressure.
With declining popularity, Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha and his regime are well aware they cannot afford to make too many enemies. This explains why the state stepped back in the Doi Suthep judges' housing saga.
But should we expect drastic changes? I am not that optimistic.
Most of the time, promises made by the state remain written in an MoU, with little or no chance of them being translated into action. The best they cab do is to provide temporary measures, something to kill the pain without operating to cure the source of the problem.
I have covered several similar protests. Some ended with cabinet resolutions in favour of the embattled villagers.
The marathon ones were those staged by the then Assembly of the Poor, with grassroots and civic groups from Isan the core components, before it evolved into the P-Move group of today, fighting against the Pak Moon dam in the 1990s.
Time and again, the villagers had to return to the streets to remind the state to honour promises that were made in the form of cabinet resolutions or MoUs.
Yes, it's just a cycle.
In those days, when the villagers returned to the street, the authorities admitted to me they were not following those cabinet resolutions. Take forest issues, for example, they would rather stick to archaic laws which pay no heed to the welfare of forest communities.
But cabinet resolutions are not legally binding. Neither are MoUs.
It's sad that some noble principles like traditional rights or people's say in development projects stipulated in the 1997 constitution -- the so-called people's charter -- have been ignored by the state.
This is why the people have to come back again and again to make their point.
To their dismay, some mechanisms invented under the 1997 charter, like the administrative court ombudsman or human rights commission, have been crippled or not worked to the fullest.
And authorities, which retain an outdated mindset, appear complicit when bold village leaders like Suphap Khamlae, wife of Den Khamlae who disappeared after engaging in forest management conflicts, are thrown into jail.
- EDITORIAL: Government was right to back down
After about four years in administration, it is apparent the regime, in particular PM Prayut, is acting more and more like the politicians they loathe or look down on. Even the attempt to smear the protesters by suggesting activists were backed by enemies of the regime smacks of political gameplaying.
We can now say Gen Prayut has transformed into a politician.
The way the PM wraps a pha kao ma around his waist during field trips makes him look like a politician trying to win the hearts of the poor. He loves big giveaways too.
But he may be reluctant to make policy or legal amendments in recognition of their rights.
So, P-Move went home with state promises that may never materialise ringing in their ears.
Will there be drastic changes in state policies? I am not optimistic.
Though deep inside I wish I am wrong.