22-8-2023 (BANGKOK) When billionaire former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra returned to Thailand on Tuesday after over 15 years in exile, it signalled potential changes ahead for the country’s turbulent politics. Hours before parliament voted for a new premier, Thaksin was promptly arrested at the airport to serve past graft convictions, though most expect him to only face symbolic jail time.
For many supporters, Thaksin’s homecoming represents long-awaited reconciliation after decades of turmoil following his 2006 ousting. However, more progressive voices see his politically expedient return as betraying the struggle against regressive elites. The truth likely lies between these perspectives.
At 74 years old, Thaksin took a final chance to see his homeland, requiring an unsavoury compromise. His populist Pheu Thai party has struggled as Thailand evolved; a new generation desires structural reforms beyond Thaksin’s rhetoric. Meanwhile, entrenched powers recognised ignoring calls for democracy was unsustainable after the reformist Move Forward party’s election surge.
Both sides made concessions to secure their interests, if not wholly the people’s. Thaksin’s advanced age likely prompted accepting an imperfect deal to return home. Conversely, the establishment opted for the most politically palatable path to maintain power.
Cynical political bargaining may not live up to lofty ideals. However, Thailand desperately needs stability and economic recovery following months of post-election paralysis. Tourism has plunged amid ongoing political uncertainty. Thaksin’s presence could catalyse functional governance to tackle pressing issues.
Compromises to end perpetual turmoil should not discount democratic shortcomings. But perpetual conflict harms citizens. Thaksin rightfully spotlighted inequality, though his polarising populism served its purpose. Younger leaders now carry the torch for progressive change.
With Pheu Thai diminished and Thaksin sidelined politically, he no longer poses the threat to upset the status quo that he once did. Perhaps the establishment accepted reconciliation only lacking alternatives. But even self-interested truces can facilitate reconciliation.
As an influential exile, Thaksin stoked unrest and instability for years. His return, even through imperfect circumstances, removes a prime source of division. While once exploiting social fractures, his final act brings opposing factions together in the name of stability.
Prolonging Thaksin’s legal issues without principled clemency perpetuated feuds. Signalling pragmatism on this could set a precedent for reconciliation, fostering a less divided society. No participant emerges spotless in Thailand’s complex politics.
All sides have erred greatly. But territorial disputes waste finite efforts better spent improving citizens’ lives. Ending perpetual turmoil opens possibilities to move beyond partisan rancour towards healing, however imperfect the circumstances.
Frustration towards corruption and compromises feels justified. But lasting reform requires engagement, not dismantling all existing structures. Stability through some political continuity allows for measured change. Both camps must concede to ultimately gain more.
Though imperfect, Thaksin’s return eliminates an excuse for ongoing conflict and resets fraught dynamics. By reintegrating a polarising figure and ending his exile, tensions could gradually ease. Citizens desire good governance and economic relief above ideological battles.
Progressives gain influence through cooperation, not radicalism. Foreseeing pragmatic gains through difficult reconciliations creates space for bolder visions tomorrow. At an impasse, opposing parties find shared humanity through face-to-face relations.
Some wounds never fully heal. But perpetual retribution compounds tragedies across generations. There comes a point where reconciliation must supplant conflict, however challenging. By ending his exile, Thaksin removes a pretext for continued feuding serving no one. Citizens alone can advance inclusive democracy through cooperation.
Reformers express valid discontent. But lasting change requires nuanced compromises and engaging all stakeholders, not dismantling the system entirely. Converting indignation into practical solutions demands finding shared interests. Thailand’s future relies on cooperation between all sides, not one prevailing alone.
If this unappetising resolution can settle scores and enable governance focusing on peoples’ needs, it serves its purpose of starting Thailand along a difficult but necessary path towards stability and socio-political healing. The future remains unwritten, but progress requires embarking on the long road ahead through incremental yet important reconciliations, however imperfect.
