Time to ponder a provisional govt

We are beginning to hear some people floating the idea of forming a provisional or interim government to break the current political impasse. This is a recurring theme whenever politicians can't settle conflicts among themselves. Politicians are strange animals. They all proclaim their support for the democratic process and principles. But they never try to work out their differences and conflicts within the democratic framework. If politicians played by the rules, and if the rule of law in this country really worked, we would not suffer the vicious cycle of military coups and elections, military coups and elections, and so on. In practice, it is almost impossible to set up a provisional government because doing so would require all the people involved taking one step backward and avoiding confrontation. Thai politics has become very confrontational over the past seven or eight years.

First, Samak Sundaravej, the prime minister, has to resign. He has become too divisive for the country. He is a man of words rather than of action. His government is busy playing politics rather than focusing on resolving the economic problems which are now very serious and are hurting most low- and middle-income families. Samak is a particular problem in the current political conflict. He has vowed to keep on fighting for his job, while the opposition Democrats will start a two-day grilling of his government today.

Second, politicians must pick a new prime minister acceptable to all parties. They will have to set aside party lines for the benefit of a new provisional government. This new prime minister must separate the political issues and the economic issues from each other. If the 2007 Constitution is to be rewritten, there must be a new process to do it, independent of the government. This would allow the new prime minister and his government to focus on tackling the economic problems and move the country forward again.

Third, the military must not stage a coup. But it can signal to politicians that they must resolve their conflicts in a workable manner, acceptable to the general public. In Bangladesh, the military played a role in brokering a deal between politicians without resorting to an outright military coup.

Fourth, the People's Alliance for Democracy has to retreat. The longer it stays on the streets, the more it is making unreasonable demands. The PAD has gained momentum with its demonstrations. It has pointed out that the government seeks to rewrite the 2007 Constitution to help the 111 former executives of the defunct Thai Rak Thai Party return to power and to help former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra overcome the corruption cases against him.

Its urban supporters are also not certain that the judicial process will run its course when it comes to Thaksin. The PAD has vowed to keep its street demonstrations in front of Government House until it achieves the objective of removing the Samak government and achieving genuine political reform. It also objects to any political participation by the People Power Party, which it deems a proxy for ousted prime minister Thaksin.

The longer the PAD stays on the street, the greater the risk that a third party could take advantage of the fragility of the situation by creating violence.

Fifth, Thaksin must fight the corruption cases against him in court in accordance with the judicial process. If the public has trust that the judicial process is not interfered with, then it will become easier to reach a political compromise.

This idea of a provisional government will remain simply a dream if politicians keep on trying to claim victory at all costs. This is a difficult time for Thailand. To avoid violence and to allow the country to move forward, all parties must make sacrifices. This means they have to lose some face and some personal benefits so that the system can function again. But we all know that this is the last thing Thai politicians have on their minds.