Published on July 16, 2005

Santi withi means non-violent conflict resolution based on justice. The conflict may not disappear easily but it will now be dealt with in the non-violent sphere, in which non-violent means can be used to seek out a just (win-win) solution. Guns fall silent and the imagination speaks out – ideas are confronted, options and scenarios are compared, development proposals are made, historical narratives are listened to, various means of expression including peaceful assembly are tolerated etc.

Santi withi does not mean surrender, passivity, escapism or going into denial. It means non-violent actions that are believed to be more effective, especially in the long run, and to yield more sustainable solutions than violent actions. Nevertheless, a non-violent advocate understands that violent means are legitimate when used to quell greater violence and criminals have to be punished in order to avoid chaos, but the advocate has chosen not to be the one who applies such violence however legitimate it may be.

Conflict occurs when more than one party have different goals and see other parties as obstacles to their achieving these goals. Johan Galtung is one of the best known theorists on non-violence. He devised the “ABC”s of conflict, which are Attitude, Behaviour and Contradiction. Conflicts are caused by negative attitudes such as stereotypes, prejudices, discrimination, contempt of others, vengefulness etc. Conflicts often result in behaviours such as verbal abuse, mistreatment, acts of terror, human rights violations and others. Contradiction is the cause of the conflict. Fights over natural resources, power, nation building and ideology are examples of contradictions that lead to conflicts.

The liberals maintain the fallacy of resolving conflicts at the attitude level. They think that conflicts can be resolved through the emphasis of good morals, positive thinking, religious teachings, psychology and so on. The conservatives deal on the level of behaviour and insist on clamping down on violent behaviours. Marxists, on the other hand, would go straight to the root cause, or the contradiction, and determine if it is based on class, ideology, nation building and work at that level, while overlooking the bad sentiments, hurt and harm generated by the conflict. The point made by Galtung is that to resolve a conflict the three ABC components need to be accorded equal importance and dealt with at the same time.

Conflict is ubiquitous. We cannot avoid conflict so the matter becomes how to prevent conflict from becoming violent or how to transform a violent conflict into a non-violent one.

The conflict in the southernmost provinces is a protracted one that has been going on for over a century. There were periods when authorities were more understanding, thus improving the situation at the attitude level, or the control of violence was more effective, thus reducing violent behaviour. But the contradiction was not addressed, so violence irrupted when the ingredients were there. The present violent situation may be compounded by new ingredients being put into the mix, such as a younger generation of militants, wavering government policy and tragic incidents such as the Krue Se and Tak Bai incidents.

But basically it is another irruption of the same latent conflict. This time the underlying contradiction may again be overlooked. When a new cycle of violence starts, the conflict may change into a “meta-conflict”, centred on how to retaliate and win, while accusing the other side of starting the violence. It becomes difficult to make concessions so long as the other side has not shown a sign of good will first. Then the cognitive space for discussing and resolving conflicts is indeed restricted.

Galtung says that by recognising the nature of the underlying contradiction a step can be taken towards conflict transformation. At the same time, negative energy can be drained out of a situation by reducing negative attitudes and behaviours. The draining of negative energy is sometimes referred to as “confidence-building measure”. If the diagnosis is correct, the conflict between the authorities and the Thai Melayu Muslims is mainly a vertical one. I use the term to connote Thai citizenship, Melayu ethnicity and Muslim religion.

This particular conflict has accumulated a lot of resentment and negative attitudes built up over years of injustice. The “therapy of the past” which consists of recognising the history of the situation and the wrongdoings of authorities in the past and an apology from the present authorities, would make headway in confidence building. By abiding by the rule of law in the South and resolving the disappearances as well as the incidents at Krue Se and Tak Bai, further headway would be made in terms of confidence building. But participatory dialogue on a “common future” is the key to resolving the underlying contradiction of the situation and providing a long-term solution.

Thirty years ago, Arong Sudthasad explained that the main cause of the conflict concerns identity: Thai Melayu Muslims would like to keep their identity while the authorities would like to impose their concept of “Thainess”. A cognitive space should be opened for all stakeholders to state their cases and enter into a dialogue over this contradiction.

But this is to be the subject of another article, I suppose.

Gothom Arya

Gothom Arya is the director of the Mahidol University Research Centre for Peace Building.

Post your comment to this story here