Shortcut to reconciliation, or vicious circle?

This, he claims, would benefit ordinary demonstrators whose political passions boiled over into violating the law in the heat of the moment.
Details of the proposal remain hazy, but some legal experts say it differs from the conventional judicial practice of applying a penalty that is subsequently suspended in order to give someone found guilty of a minor offence the chance to correct their behaviour.
Seree said his committee had been working on reconciliation efforts for some time, and he revealed the fruit of their deliberations in response to journalists’ questions. Though he declined to term the idea an “amnesty”, he said dealing with ordinary demonstrators in this way would help heal the nationwide political rift.
Yesterday, he urged former protest leaders to put aside their egos and support the proposal so that their supporters could be freed from legal burdens and reconciliation be given a chance to grow.
Seree’s call makes sense in terms of the lifting the legal pressure on thousands of ordinary demonstrators, but big questions remain over whether it can help bring reconciliation.
Victims of political violence have spoken out against the proposal.  Among them is Adul Khiewboriboon, chairman of the Relatives of the Black May Heroes group, who says victims’ demand is for truth and justice before healing and compensation.
As such, Seree’s idea reflects a major flaw in ongoing reconciliation efforts and has prompted concern that it would deepen rather than heal the political rift.
 The proposal is too narrow to address the issues fuelling division, including the legitimate demands for justice being made by victims. It apparently seeks a judicial shortcut when only a much wider process of investigation and truth-finding can bring resolution to the political conflict.
Reconciliation needs a foundation of truth-seeking as well as time to evolve – something recognised by the victims of political violence, peace advocates and even Anek Laothammatas’s reconciliation committee under the now-defunct National Reform Council (NRA).
The six steps towards reconciliation proposed by Anek’s committee began with fact-finding and revealing the truth, however painful to some. This would forge a basis for a joint understanding of the incidents, the second step. Then an atmosphere of contrition and forgiveness would have a chance to grow, with legal channels also helping  to bring justice. The process would be completed with efforts towards rehabilitation and compensation, and the promotion of a supportive environment with rule of law plus preventative measures against the use of violence to solve conflict.
The process thus progresses in steps and takes time.
Seree’s proposal might indeed have merits, but to achieve permanent reconciliation, we need to return to the more considered process laid out under the NRA. Otherwise we risk a misstep that could leave us even further from our destination of political peace.
Piyaporn_won@nationgroup.com