Protests will not yield all-out winner

Protests will not yield all-out winner

Protesters display 'people's street art' last Thursday as part of their rally. (Photo by Varuth Hirunyatheb)
Protesters display 'people's street art' last Thursday as part of their rally. (Photo by Varuth Hirunyatheb)

Former prime minister Anand Panyarachun has broken his silence on the political conflict, which he described as nothing unusual as this has happened countless times in the past 88 years since Thailand transformed from absolute monarchy to constitutional monarchy.

During an interview with The Voice of America Thai on Oct 27, he made some valid points. First, he believes the conflict is negotiable because it is an ideological conflict, not racial or religious, and he agrees with the concept of reconciliation to resolve the problem.

On the issue of the constitution, the former prime minister said the charter is not a panacea for all the problems in this country and that a new charter, if it is to be written, must be concise and contain only major principles with input from political thinkers, not just the jurists.

Another interesting point that he made which I think the two opposing sides in the conflict, the Prayut Chan-o-cha government and the royalists on one hand and the anti-establishment students and their supporters on the other, should pay heed to is that: "In politics, no one can win 100% or lose 100%."

Mr Anand said Prime Minister Prayut was "wrong" seven years ago; a possible response to Gen Prayut retorting in relation to student demands that he quit: "What did I do wrong?"

Seven years ago, the prime minister staged a coup to oust the then Pheu Thai-led government supposedly to prevent the country from slipping into lawlessness and chaos following several months of violence-prone protests organised by the People's Democratic Reform Committee.

As could be anticipated, the embattled prime minister remains as defiant as ever, vowing to stay on to complete his unfinished jobs.

Mr Anand did not directly address, however, the most contentious issue of the conflict -- calls for reform of the monarchy and the students' 10-point manifesto which calls for sweeping reform. He merely touched on the lese majeste issue or Section 112 of the Criminal Code by suggesting it should be decriminalised, leaving only the part about civil liability.

For the staunch royalists and the older generation who have faith in the institution, the conflict is about far more than just the demands for the prime minister's resignation and a new constitution. It all boils down to just one demand, what the royalist camp considers to be the campaign's ultimate objective, overthrowing the monarchy in Thailand.

Protest leaders have repeatedly claimed they merely want the institution to be reformed and to come under the constitution. But the royalists refuse to buy their story and have hardened their opposition, citing several incidents deemed to be offensive or insulting to the monarchy. Acts are indicative of intention, as the law says.

Or, in layman's terms, actions speak louder than words. The extremely rude gesture by a protester in front of the royal motorcade of HM the Queen, the hate messages spewed on social media or written on Silom Road, the campaign for the removal of a piece of artistic work in memory of the late King Bhumibol at the Faculty of Architecture of Chiang Mai University are some examples of the sentiment underlying the protesters so-called "reform" proposal.

Simple questions: If you sincerely want someone to reform would you point a middle finger in front of him, or reprimand him every time you vent your frustration? Or would you try a decent approach, respecting his human dignity?

The manifesto itself has been interpreted by royalists as an attempt to dismantle the monarchy, not to reform the institution as claimed. For instance, the first point demands the revocation of Section 6 of the constitution granting immunity to the monarch from criminal or civil litigation. The protesters have proposed a clause to empower the House to consider the King's alleged offences.

Point No.7 of the manifesto forbids the monarch from free expression in public on political affairs. According to the royalists, this amounts to a mockery of the principle of free expression so cherished by the protesters.

A former leader of the anti-Thaksin People's Alliance for Democracy, Sondhi Limthongkul, says every democratic country has a law to protect its head of state from criminal or civil prosecution.

Meanwhile, the police keep rearresting the four core leaders, namely Parit Chivarak, Panupong Jadnok, Anont Nampa and Panusaya Sitthijirawattanul, with fresh charges every time they are granted bail by the court.

Mr Anand has suggested that both sides should talk. But who will volunteer to act as facilitator to bring the two sides together to negotiate and, more importantly, who would be trusted by both sides? And last but not least, who will represent the protesters as it appears the protesters are leaderless.

With both sides hardening their stance, the prospect of a constructive discussion on this sensitive issue appears remote for the time being or in the short term at least. But as long as both sides show restraint, the protests should remain peaceful although the disruption could harm the economy if the standoff drags on too long.

Going back to Mr Anand's maxim on political conflicts, both sides need to realise that they can either negotiate and work to win together or else everybody may lose.

Veera Prateepchaikul

Former Editor

Former Bangkok Post Editor, political commentator and a regular columnist at Post Publishing.

Do you like the content of this article?
COMMENT (22)