CALD E.D. Attends FNF-NDI Lecture on Role of Parties in Divided Societies

“Elected representatives and political parties should be at the forefront of efforts to promote reconciliation and political reforms…”

This line of thinking was shared by both the Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Liberty (FNF) and the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI), which led them to organize a a public lecture on the role of political parties in deeply divided societies in Bangkok, Thailand last 24 February 2011.  CALD Executive Director, Lito Arlegue, was invited to attend this event, taking into consideration the fact that CALD still operates in a region marked by deep-seated societal and political conflicts.

The lecture brought together speakers from different parts of the world which had experienced deep social divisions and political discord:   Denis Haughey of Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP-Ireland); Mohammad Najib of National Mandate Party (PAN–Indonesia); Ken Andrew of Democratic Party (DP-South Africa); and Ravi Karunanayake of United National Party (UNP-Sri Lanka).  They shared the experiences of their respective societies in facilitating reconciliation and political reform, particularly the role played by the parliament and political parties in the process.  The objective was to expose Thai society to political reform and reconciliation efforts that have been successful in other contexts.

Mr. Haughney related the experience of political parties in forging the Good Friday Agreement, which laid the foundations for lasting peace in Ireland.  He said that in conflictual societies, political parties play an important role in creating a “framework of accommodation” that makes possible democratic decision-making and conflict resolution.  Peace, says Mr. Haughney, could only be possible once the following requisites are met: 1) commitment of all parties to non-use of violence; 2) involvement of all relevant parties in the negotiation process; 3) inclusion of all important issues in the negotiation agenda; 4) subscription to the principle that “nothing is agreed, until everything is agreed”; and 5) ratification of the final agreement by the general public.

Looking at Indonesia’s Reformasi as a case of political reform process, Mr Najib argued that this would not have been possible without the participation of political parties and the parliament.  Political parties, he said, “became very effective venues where ideas could interact and be promoted before being put to the test during deliberations…”  As political parties from diverse political ideologies, religious backgrounds and ethnicities interact and associate with one another in the parliament, they learned the value of accomodation and compromise.  Mr. Najib noted that this moderation of fundamentalist beliefs and attitudes resulted in the maturation of the political process, which accounts for the remarkable transition to and consolidation of democracy in Indonesia.

“Where there is a will, there is a way” – this was the greatest lesson he learned from the South African experience, according to Mr. Andrew.  “If the major participants are determined to succeed, if they recognize that, despite the risk and difficulties, it is in the long-term interests of the country and the people they represent to find solutions through negotiations and compromise, it can be done”, he said.  He shared a number of lessons learnt, which he divided into the following categories: the role of political parties; getting the negotiations off the ground; keeping negotiations on track; making negotiations work; and avoiding deadlocks.  One of the most important lessons related by Mr. Andrew was on the costs and risks of entering negotiations with the other party, particularly when that party was perceived as a “historic enemy.”  He observed, “The challenge was to change the perceptions of the other side from being a dangerous enemy to being a potential partner in a peaceful, solution-seeking process.”

The Sri Lankan case, however, appeared to diverge from the peaceful process adopted by South Africa.   According to Mr. Karunanayake, the Sri Lanka government resolved the conflict by adopting a militaristic solution to address the threat posed by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE).  While the strategy seems to be successful at the moment, he expressed concerns on whether the resultant peace could be sustainable.  In a country still experiencing inequitable distribution of wealth, ethno-religious tensions, and discriminatory government policies, he asked, “Is the end of the war necessarily the beginning of peace?”

“This gathering of politicians from post-conflict societies to share their experiences regarding the promotion of national reconciliation and political reform has been very instructive, particularly for Thailand which is still reeling from the tense political confrontations last year”, said Mr. Arlegue.  “While every country is unique, and there are no hard and fast rules when it comes to conflict resolution, it may still be useful to listen to success stories from other countries as there would always be lessons to be learned which could hasten the reconciliation and reform processes in deeply divided societies like Thailand.”

Categorised in: News Article

This post was written by CALD