Reconciliation needed for meaningful political reform

National reconciliation is still very far away.

Many groups are calling for political reform, with different agendas, means and goals. The protesting People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) calls for what they call "New Politics" about which no one, including its leaders, can give a clear picture. PAD's leader Sondhi Limthongkul called for a return of "royal power" in politics while other leaders, including Pipop Thongchai, have called for changes in the electoral system.

They have urged academics to help draw up a blueprint for the new politics, but it seems too many cooks might spoil the soup.

In this case, too many intellectuals, notably political scientists, might spoil the plan. Rectors of 24 universities have come up with a plan to establish a political reform council. They called on Parliament to pick a single good man to head the council and then give him a free hand to pick members of his choosing to draw up a blueprint and road map for political reform.

Some social activists and NGOs want to add social elements to the reform and call it social reform. These ideas night have been far away from what the PAD wants. Meanwhile, Somchai's government has floated the idea of amending article 291 of the military-sponsored Constitution to pave the way for political reform by setting up a new charter drafting committee. Again, political reform in Thailand never strays far from the impulse to create a new constitution. The country already has had 18 constitutions but politics has never really been reformed.

All agendas for political reform floated in the public these days are never free from questions and doubts. All groups suspect the others might have hidden agendas behind their proposals.

The PAD agenda simply aims to get rid of Thaksin Shinawatra and his associates from politics. "New Politics" was widely criticised as being undemocratic. Returning power to the monarchy, unelected MPs and the bureaucrats could not be deemed as advancing democracy but rather a great leap backward. Many progressive intellectuals and politicians would not accept the reactionary PAD's elitist proposals.

The proposal from the 24 university rectors is nothing but a modification of PAD's idea with the same goal: to get rid of Thaksin and his politicians from politics. The senior citizens they named to lead the reform are not strangers but Thaksin's foes. If the idea to reform is to get rid of somebody from politics, it will fail at the beginning.

PAD spokesman Suriyasai Katasila said Somchai's proposals for amending the constitution are not far from being a whitewash for Thaksin. The Constitution Drafting Committee, if any, is a delaying tactic to buy time for Somchai to stay longer in the power, he said.

 It is difficult to see how these reform proposals could be synchronised, as all factions in society mistrust each other. Political reform badly needs creative ideas from all participatory groups. Creative participation cannot occur unless people come together with trust.

As prominent intellectual Nidhi Eoseewong said in his recent article, social reform will never happen while a group of people seize Government House.

The first step for any successful political reform would be to build trust and confidence among groups of people in the society. All parties should have open minds and listen to others throughout the country to know what the people really want to reform.

If people in this country remain mistrustful of each other and the various proposals are merely part of political games or power plays, nobody should propose reforms at all. Without fundamental changes in attitudes, the country will not get real reform but another useless piece of paper called a "constitution."