• 
• 

Such long-standing non-violent political engagements, common in the West, are rare indeed in the Asean context, where huge public gatherings are often seen as direct threats to the government in power and to public order. Over the years, Thai civil-society groups have been very vocal in expressing their concerns on various social and political issues. Despite the love-hate relationship between the government and civil-society groups, the latter's activities and voices have been taken seriously.

It is sad but true that Thailand's democratic development and experience over the past several years have not been inspiring enough for the region to emulate. Otherwise the region could have benefited from Thailand's social and political experiments. The political models of Singapore and Vietnam, which have yielded political stability and high economic growth, have instead attracted widespread praise.

Over 60 per cent of the 575 million citizens of Asean countries live in a fairly free and democratic environment. For the past three years, Asean has been trying to invert the four-decade-old pattern of top-down decision-making through controlled and limited engagements with Asean-based civil-society groups. With a clear road map towards creating the people-centred Asean Community in 2015, Asean's leaders fully realise they have to get involved with the non-governmental sector. It is no longer a zero-sum game.

However, it will be an excruciatingly slow process. Not all Asean members have independent civil-society groups, as Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand and Malaysia do. Despite different outlooks, the comfort level has increased among the various kinds of civil-society groups. Government-sanctioned civil groups have learned from their independent counterparts. Their consultations have become more regular and resulted in shared norms and a collective vision.

Unfortunately, even with such a regionwide consensus, as in the case of charter inputs, once matters reach the highest level, Asean leaders immediately water them down. Citizen's initiatives and views in more democratic Asean members are embraced by senior officials, but a conservative element within Asean has more persistence and often dilutes the final result. Their positions are reflective of the political realities in their countries.

This explains why lawmakers in Indonesia and the Philippines have some reservations over the Asean Charter, which has so far been ratified by seven member countries. Thailand's ratification has taken longer than anticipated due to parliamentary vetting and scrutiny. It is expected to be completed by next month.

This regional trend also reflects the broader picture in the rest of the world.

A recent report, "Defending Civil Society", commissioned by an Eminent Persons Group including Vaclav Havel, Anwar Ibrahim, the Dalai Lama, and Saad Eddin Ibrahim, outlines how authoritarian governments use legal or quasi-legal measures to suffocate civil-society groups.

The report, produced by the World Movement for Democracy, a global network of democracy, human-rights, and other civil-society activists, points out that governments enact such barriers to discourage civic participation and prevent the formation of organisations. Ironically, these same governments have signed international laws, including various conventions that protect civil-society groups' autonomy and activities.

As the current Asean chair, Thailand has to bridge the discrepancy between verbal commitments and actual practice, especially on norms and principles related to human rights, democracy and the free flow of information, which have been mentioned in various forms in Asean documents and action plans, but it is going to be an extremely tough challenge.

For instance, the Asean chair has to oversee the drafting of the terms of reference to establish the region's first human-rights body.

Professor Vitit Muntarbhorn, a Thai alternate member of the High Level Panel drafting its contents, has reiterated that the forthcoming Asean rights mechanism must be anchored on the bedrock of international law and universal standards.

Learning from when the charter's drafters ignored their contributions, Asean-based civil-society groups have already come up with a comprehensive draft of what they would consider ideal for the rights body. They want one that can genuinely promote and protect human rights, one with all the universal elements. The question remains: will the High Level Panel seriously consider their input? Representatives from civil-society groups have presented the draft to Ambassador to the UN Sihasak Phuangketkeow, the chair of the panel. They will meet in a consultation forum with all HLP drafters next month in Manila.

Beyond the current official and nonofficial (track-one and track-two) framework, the Thai armed forces have recently initiated a dialogue forum between defence officials from Asean and its dialogue partners together with representatives of civil-society organisations and media outlets. This military-civilian forum, organised by National Defence Studies Institute and Strategic Research Institute, is the first of its kind in Asean. It is aimed at promoting mutual understanding and cooperation in dealing with challenges coming from non-traditional security issues, such as climate change, environment degradation, pandemics and infectious diseases, counter-terrorism and narcotic threats.

Since the tsunami in December 2004, Yokjakarta's earthquake in October 2005, Cyclone Nargis in May and growing concerns over the impact of climate change, the defence apparatus in the region has acknowledged the positive contributions by civil-society groups, especially in rescue and relief operations. Indeed they are more willing to share information with civilian counterparts than their senior political officials in order to raise awareness of threats and to facilitate future preventive measures.

In the coming months it is incumbent on Asean leaders to have an open mind to encourage the participation of their citizens and widen public space. The people-centred community, no matter how vividly it is outlined and propagated, will not materialise if non-governmental stakeholders are not part of the overall scheme of things.