Political Reform, Not Reconciliation, Should Be The Goal: Political Scientist

[webfact]

INTERVIEW

Political reform, not reconciliation, should be the goal: political scientist

By Pravit Rojanaphruk

The Nation

With less than four weeks to go before the election, expectations are high and there are deep concerns about post-electoral prospects. The Nation's Pravit Rojanaphruk talks to political scientist Kengkij Kitirianglarp from Kasetsart University's Department of History about his expectations, fears and more. Kengkij is a rising star among young Thai political scientists and a self-professed red shirt. Excerpts.

What's the worst-case post-electoral scenario for you?

That the Pheu Thai Party, if it wins the election, will be dissolved through some kind of judicial ruling. We're already seeing some people pushing in that direction. I don't think there will be a military coup though.

Is national reconciliation really the most important and urgent goal all sides should aspire to achieve? Might it not be better in the long run to see the conflict reach its logical conclusion instead of a half-baked compromise and no genuine change in the political structure?

The issue is the conditions on which the talks for reconciliation will be based on. For the Democrat Party, it's about them continuing to run the government, nothing more. For Pheu Thai, it's about accepting electoral results and the amnesty, but we must ask further what such an amnesty entails. Does |it include granting amnesty |to those responsible for the deaths [last April and May]? There are many parties to the conflict who are not inside the government.

I don't see reconciliation as a goal. The discourse about reconciliation originated from the elite. What is needed is political reform under a democratic system. For example, judicial reform is something Pheu Thai should be discussing.

How can the military be kept at bay, away from politics?

The main task for people who support the election is to remind both the military and the Democrat Party that elections are how political conflicts are settled in a parliamentary system. The situation now is such that not all sides support the election or think it's the solution. Look at the "No" vote campaign by the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD).

We have yet to achieve a consensus regarding the role of elections.

What would you say to those expecting a political solution from the upcoming general election?

Personally, I do not want people to expect that all problems will disappear after the election. Though we must pay attention to it, it won't lead to immediate national reconciliation. We have to keep an eye on the role of the judiciary and the military.

What does the "No" vote campaign by the PAD reflect?

It reflects the lack of trust in politicians and elections. They believe that all politicians are corrupt. The move to restore royal power, with more than 100,000 signatures being collected [for a petition to the palace] is a move that says: "we don't want democracy in this society".

And what about the fact that the red-shirt movement has no visible impact or influence in helping form the political platform of the Pheu Thai Party, making it quite clear that it's still just Thaksin Shinawatra calling the shots?

It reflects the failure of the ex-communist insurgents within the red-shirt movement. Besides people like [Red Sunday faction leader] Sombat [boon-ngam-anong] calling for people to go out and vote, what else did he say about the policies Pheu Thai should have? What about the role of Democratic Alliance Against Dictatorship (DAAD) caretaker leader Thida [Thavornset Tojirakarn] in determining the party's policies?

What role did these so-called "progressives" play in forming policy? If none, then it would be akin to having Thaksin deciding everything and red shirts just providing support.

The last five years or so saw both poles of the political conflict unable to defeat each other due to their near parity of power and endurance. Do you think such a situation will continue for some time to come?

I think it will remain this way for a long time yet, especially as long as those in the top echelons of society do not yield to those below. The masses definitely won't give up and the number of red shirts is not decreasing.

The red shirts are playing a greater role in challenging the ruling class to change themselves and the challenge will intensify. As long as the elites refuse, the conflict will persist. If the elites refuse to reform the system, the change will come through a people's revolution from below, which will take some time to materialise. A compromised reform from above will definitely require less time to be completed.

-- The Nation 2011-06-09

[pastitche]

Why oh why has no-one recognised that here might be a real analysis of this sad country's problem?

[Thai at Heart]

Why oh why has no-one recognised that here might be a real analysis of this sad country's problem?

Maybe everyone agrees, so no one wants to argue with his statements????

More seriously, it is only one persons view of the situation, with his political leanings clearly laid out at the top. He lays out quite clearly some logical reasons why the situation may be as it is. However, there are a lot of people on here who state exactly the same explanations, but they get absolutely pilloried. I don't claim to be any more enlightened than any other on here, but there are always two sides to every story, and what he presents here, is I feel, but one side of the story.

The secure future of this country, isn't green, red or yellow, it is somewhere in the middle.

Edited June 9, 2011 by Thai at Heart

[whybother]

Why oh why has no-one recognised that here might be a real analysis of this sad country's problem?

Maybe everyone agrees, so no one wants to argue with his statements????

More seriously, it is only one persons view of the situation, with his political leanings clearly laid out at the top. He lays out quite clearly some logical reasons why the situation may be as it is. However, there are a lot of people on here who state exactly the same explanations, but they get absolutely pilloried. I don't claim to be any more enlightened than any other on here, but there are always two sides to every story, and what he presents here, is I feel, but one side of the story.

The secure future of this country, isn't green, red or yellow, it is somewhere in the middle.

If posters didn't agree with what was said, they would post their comments as to why.

So there doesn't seem to be much to comment on.

[Robroy]

Lots of common sense here - in that the Thai elite has kept power & resources for themselves for a very long time, & that a big change has to come if the country is to prgress.

I would like to see a red Shirt person separate out the fact of Thaksin Shinawatra from this equation however.

Needed though reform is, surely it cannot be associated with someone as corrupt & murderous as Mr Thaksin.

[colinscarr]

Yes, the interview brought out a lot of common sense.

What I find sad is that there are no 'good guys' either in power now, or likely to be in power after the election. All we are seeing is a fight (sometimes with fatalities) over who gets to shove their snouts in the trough.

The rural poor, who form the PTP / Redshirt support deserve better.