Both
Thailand and Indonesia have been in a period of transition to more progressive
form of government. On the one hand, in Thailand, the concept of democracy has
repeatedly been tested. Even though several prime ministers have been elected
constitutionally since the 1980s, the problem of military coups and strong
grassroots protest against governments remain steady. On the other hand,
Indonesia has generally been undertaking tremendous efforts to reform its
political system.
Since the
collapse of long-time ruler Suharto in 1998, Indonesia has transformed itself
to become an example of modern democracy among other developing countries
across the world. Additionally, these two countries differ in their treatment
of long-ruling leaders. Interestingly, though he faced public anger at times,
Suharto could head back to his beloved house in Cendana peacefully after
handing over the presidency to his successor. In sharp contrast, former prime
minister of Thailand, Thaksin Shinawatra has been in exile since a military
coup toppled him in 2006.
However, both
countries face deep grievances within society after an era of corrupt governments.
In Thailand, Thaksin has been creating a sharp division within society by
splitting the country into two camps, namely his proponents, a group known as the
Red Shirts as his opponents, the Yellow shirts. In Indonesia, for Suharto, there has been a
clear demarcation between the victims of past gross violations of human rights
and the alleged perpetrators of those violations.
Furthermore,
these cases show how the democratic governments deal with the national
reconciliation process. Reconciliation depends
on the capacity of elected government to establish or restore democratic
relationships; it is critical to the pursuit of peacemaking domestically. In the
pursuit of reconciliation, the value of justice has to be upheld together with
the value of national stability. To achieve this, two important steps can be undertaken,
namely proposing a genuine apology and enforcing a legal prosecution.
In the case
of Thailand, Yinluck has failed to build a national reconciliation by issuing
an apology as she promised in her first address as prime minister. The Yinluck
administration has no political will to prosecute those responsible for the
2010 crisis that brought Thailand to deep political stand-off. A bloody crisis
in 2010, in which 98 people died, was initially expected to be turning point
for Yinluck Shinawatra’s government to achieve a national reconciliation. Yet, the
result has been slower progress. No one from the military or the previous
government has been held accountable for the violent suppression of the
protests. While the Yinluck administration has provided monetary compensation
to the effected families, it has given no official apology.
Meanwhile,
of the 1,019 protesters that were arrested during the crackdown, 20 still
remain in prison (World Politics Review, 2013). This situation has been
aggravated by the government’s arrangement to “protect” the military by
granting them a major role in security matters without exercising much
oversight, including of its annual budget allocation.
On the
other hand, the intention of Yinluck administration’s intention to reconcile Thailand
by granting amnesty, instead triggering political opposition. This is the irony
of democracy in which a worthy intention of the elected leader to reconcile the
country instead draws strong protests from society. The main reason for this
rejection is that Thaksin, Yinluck’s brother, will be allowed to return to
Bangkok. This intention instantly received strong protest from the elite and
educated people who have long been seen as initiators of local protests against
the Thaksin’ backed government since 2006. They view Yinluck as similar as his
brother who governed amid corruption and constrained citizens’ freedom.
In the
Indonesian cases, the reconciliation is also still easier said than done. Since
the end of Suharto government, the Indonesian government has failed to achieve reconciliation
at the national level. There is no
genuine apology from the current government for what have been seen as past shocking
abuses of human rights, particularly during the Suharto period. One particular
case is sided in the report completed by the National Commission on Human
Rights (Komnas Ham) regarding the 1965 massacre carried out by the state. This
report’s recommendation that the government issue an apology but it was overlooked,
and there was no further investigation by the government.
In terms of
pursuing legal prosecution, neither Thailand nor Indonesia ever shows strong
political will to consistently enforce laws. There are a number of initiatives
since the end of Suharto rule to deal with grassroots human rights violations,
such as forming a truth and reconciliation commission and introducing human
rights bill, but these have served particular interest groups. In this regard,
the two countries have aims to “protect” particular groups, such as the
military who are known to have a constant impunity. In Papua’s case for
instance, no apology has been offered by the Indonesian government for the
state’s exploitation and intimidation of Papuans since they became part of
Indonesia.
Ironically,
instead of declaring a genuine apology and enforcing legal prosecution, the current
government has initiated giving national hero status to Sarwo Edhie Wibowo, a former
special forced commander and also father-in-law of the current president Susilo
Bambang Yudhoyono. Wibowo is considered responsible for ordering the death of thousands
of Indonesians in 1965. This fact amplifies the assumption that impunity in
Indonesia has become very much embedded into the nation’s political culture.
Both
countries have been practicing a similar refusal to seek a national
reconciliation. If Thailand has been facing a prolonged crisis due to the
absence of a genuine apology and legal prosecution, Indonesia also has the
potential to have long-term deep grievances turn unexpectedly into social
conflict. Eventually, these two countries cannot build a strong transition and
consolidation, if reconciliation is still absent, particularly at the national level.
No comments:
Post a Comment