Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Applying Mixed Research Methods for Thailand’s Reconciliation
Thawilwadee Bureekul, Stithorn Thananithichot and Ratchawadee Sangmahamad
King Prajadhipok's Institute1
Abstract
Reconciliation is not an easily-implemented process. The aim of this paper is to
investigate how the process of public deliberation can be applied successfully as a conflict
resolution tool to the context of a deeply polarized society like Thailand. Mixed research
methods are employed to find the appropriate solutions for Thailand’s reconciliation. Data
were taken from a pre-post survey conducted in a nationwide deliberative forum facilitated
by the King Prajadhipok’s Institute in 12 provinces of Thailand during September 2012 and
March 2014. The respondents are 80% from probability sampling from eligible voters and
20% from specific groups. The result shows that the participants’ attitudes in those
deliberative forums regarding political conflicts and reconciliation in Thai society have
changed from extremist, preferring a use of either strictly law enforcement or forgiveness
without condition in order to solve the conflict, to the view that supports an inclusive
dialogue process for improving relationship between people in the society as well as a truth
finding process that may bring about apology, sympathy, and forgiveness. In order to
reconcile Thai society, this paper thus suggests public deliberation to be inclusively
established throughout the country to allow people from all sectors to deliberate on Thailand
future. Applying public deliberation as a process or tool which is an addition to the
conventional research method for public policy formulation on complicated issues and
diversified stakeholders.
1 Contact information: King Prajadhipok's Institute, The Government Complex (Building B) 5th floor (Southern
Zone), Chaengwattana Road, Thung Song Hong, Laksi District, Bangkok 10210
Tel: +66 2 1419594 Fax: +66 2 1438177
Email: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
2
Keywords: Mixed methods, Reconciliation; Public deliberation; Conflict resolution;
Thailand
Introduction
The concept of deliberative dialogue has long been developed, yet it remains
debatable. It may be conceptualized in a narrow sense as it was first devised as a discussion
on the floor of the representative assembly (Bessette 1980; Elster 1998; Estlund 2008). It
could also be defined in a very broad sense to include an “everyday talk,” which is not only
formal forms of conversation but also informal ones such as storytelling, joking, and greeting,
as a crucial part of the full deliberative system (Mansbridge 1999). However, this paper
focuses on the most familiar term of deliberative dialogue that has widely been discussed and
referred to as a theory of political science, public administration, and peace studies that
provides a bridge between democratic theory and concrete policy practices (Fischer 2003).
More specifically, deliberative dialogue or any other terms used in this paper such as
democratic deliberation, public deliberation, and so on is understood as a political process
that engages the public in discussion in open and transparent ways before decisions on public
policy are finalized.
The aim of the present paper is to investigate how the process of public deliberation
can be applied successfully as a conflict resolution tool to the context of a deeply polarized
society like Thailand. The results shown in this paper are part of the research project on
“Future of Thailand and Desirable Politics2” conducted by King Prajadhipok’s Institute.
Using the participation in the so-called “Thailand Deliberative Forum” as data collection
method, which employs public deliberation as a tool of the study, the main attempt made in
this project is to search for approaches to solve the problem of political conflict and seeking
for the future of the country and democracy, which are desirable elements for Thai society. In
2 See appendix for further detail regarding this project.
3
the meantime, it provides an opportunity for the stakeholders to truly participate in the
project. To this respect, they can give useful information and express their views in terms of
political system and social problem in democratic regime, which has His Majesty the King as
Head of State, through a number of activities of the project. The results of the research study
bring about body of knowledge and the approaches to solve the problem, which is seeking to
deliberative dialogue to solve political conflict in the society, by working together with the
concerned parties, in order to design images of the future for the country and establish
framework of political rules which can be accepted by the concerned parties.
Theoretical Perspectives: Democratic deliberation as a reconciliation tool
Basically, the research framework was developed with the assumption that conflict is
intrinsically part of society. Whether conflict leads to negative or positive outcomes depends
on the way it was managed (Chaiwat Satha-anand, 2003). This belief is in accordance with
Morris (2004) which states that conflict is unavoidable as long as humans interact with each
other. Conflict can lead to development, innovative ideas, and improvement, though it can
also lead to violence and atrocity depending on how parties deal with it.
Protracted, deadly intrastate conflicts can be categorized into three groups (Bercovitch
et al, 2009) as follow:
1) conflict that aims to change political structure or state ideology;
2) conflict that aims to change government in order to have power to govern or
allocate resources;
3) conflict that aims to establish a new country or separate territory.
Under such a protracted conflict situation, one needs a process to transform the
conflict into a desirable outcome. The process could then bring about better changes by
adjusting hostile relationships and attitudes, redressing grievances and root causes of the
4
conflict, and building an environment that is conducive to development and positive peace
(Azar quoted in Abu-Nimer, 2001). The tools of conflict transformation can include dialogue,
mediation, and negotiation between parties and relevant stakeholders. Adjusting relationships
and attitudes is one aspect of resolving conflict, while another dimension is to find
substantive agreement for sustainable peace (Vanchai Vattanasapt, 2007).
Besides conflict transformation, one needs to also consider issues related to truth and
justice in a transitional period (Rigby, 2001). Transitional justice would involve critical and
even controversial issues such as truth-finding, amnesty, retribution, compensation, and
structural reforms (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Thailand, 2554; Huyse, 1998).
This could then be called a reconciliation phase.
A reconciliation process is a process that would reduce hatred and create trust as well
as restore relationships between those who had engaged in violence. Responsibility, truth
acceptance, mercy, and the shared future of the society are part of the process (Abu-Nimer,
2001; Bloomfield, Barnes, and Huyse, 2003). Above all, the end goal is to construct a
reconciled society where different people can coexist peacefully and be able to manage and
transform conflict into a better change (Abu-Nimber, 2001; Weiner, 1998).
At the present time, deliberative dialogue is a process, which is accepted worldwide,
as the heart of reconciliation and beginning of political reform. According to Gutmann and
Thompson (2004), there are at least four important characteristics of democratic deliberative
process. First and most importantly, democratic deliberation is a reason-giving requirement
process, in which the reasons that the deliberative democracy asks citizens and their
representatives to give should appeal to principles that individuals who are trying to find fair
terms of cooperation cannot reasonably reject. The reasons are neither merely procedural nor
substantive, but they are reasons that should be accepted by free and equal persons seeking
fair terms of cooperation.
5
A second characteristic of democratic deliberation is that the reasons given in this
process should be accessible to all the citizens to whom they are address. In other words, the
reasons must be public, and they are public in two senses: (1) in the sense that the
deliberation itself must take place in public, not merely in the privacy of one’s mind; and (2)
in the sense that the reasons must be public concerning their content – a deliberative
justification does not even begin if those to whom it is addressed cannot understand its
essential content.
The third characteristic of democratic deliberation is that its process aims at producing
a decision that is binding for some period of time. In this respect the deliberative process is
not like a talk show or an academic seminar. The participants do not argue for argument’s
sake; they do not argue even for truth’s own sake. They intend their discussion to influence a
decision the government will make, or a process that will affect how future decisions are
made.
The fourth characteristic of democratic deliberation is that its process is dynamic.
Although deliberation aims at a justifiable decision, it does not presuppose that the decision
at hand will in fact be justified, let alone that a justification today will suffice for the
indefinite future. It keeps open the possibility of a continuing dialogue, one in which citizens
can criticize previous decisions and move ahead on the basis of that criticism.
Combining these four characteristics, Gutmann and Thompson (2004:7) define
deliberative democracy as “a form of government in which free and equal citizens (and their
representatives), justify decisions in a process in which they give one another reasons that are
mutually acceptable and generally accessible, with the aim of reaching conclusions that are
blinding in the present on all citizens but open to challenge in the future.” For this reason,
deliberative democracy differs from some other attitudes and practices in democratic politics
in that it exhorts participants to be concerned not only with their own interests but to listen to
6
and take account of the interests of others insofar as these are compatible with justice.
Practices of deliberative democracy also aim to bracket the influence of power differentials in
political outcomes because agreement between deliberators should be reached on the basis of
argument, rather than as a result of threats or force (Young 2001).
What will democratic deliberation do for us? Gutmann and Thompson (1996) identify
four principal benefits: it (1) helps promote the legitimacy of collective decisions; (2)
encourages public-spirited perspectives on public issue; (3) promotes mutually respectful
decision making; and (4) helps democracies correct the mistakes of the past. Deliberative
democracy promises legitimate – that is, morally justifiable and rationally produced –
solutions to vexing political problems. Especially when these problems are difficult,
affording no clear way to arrive at unequivocally satisfactory solution, deliberation
recommends itself because it relies on a broad consideration of alternative solution,
increasing the likelihood that the perspectives held by all members of a heterogeneous
community will be given voice.
Deliberation is also clarifying and enlightening, highlighting the moral issues at stake
in political debates and allowing citizens to elucidate these issues for themselves. Finally,
democratic deliberation enhances democracy. Democratic theorists now take deliberation to
be the exemplary practice or activity for democrats, and they gear their arguments toward its
realization. Hence, deliberation has become a standard for the accomplishment of democracy.
And, when democratic theorists suggest remodeling our politics, it is in the direction of
making them more deliberative.
With these benefits, the deliberative democrat thinks that the best way to limit
political domination and the naked imposition of partisan interest and to promote social
justice through public policy is to foster the creation of sites and processes of deliberation
among diverse and disagreeing elements of the polity (Young 2003). Most deliberative
7
democrats, however, acknowledge one objection that critics have put to this contention:
deliberative methods of decision making can fail to advance these political values under
unfavorable conditions such as economic equality, cultural difference, or the absence of a
reciprocal willingness to engage in the practice of deliberation (Fung 2005). Economic
inequalities, for example, enable wealthier parties to improperly displace communicative
power by mounting threats, purchasing compliance, drowning out other perspectives,
mobilizing many forms of support, or simply privatizing some area of concern out of the
domain of public deliberation. Another effect of such inequality is that individuals encounter
each other with very different capacities to deliberate. Political and administrative
inequalities allow officials to restrict and eliminate domains of deliberative governance and to
substitute canonical expertise for argument when they do engage with citizens. Finally,
cultural inequalities may favor hegemonic discourses or styles of communication in
deliberative decision making.
In addition, public deliberation is best understood in a democratic context (Kettering
Foundation, 2008: 46). It takes for democracy to work as it should—from the perspective of
citizens. From democracy based on public deliberation is not direct democracy or an
alternative to representative democracy. Choosing representatives requires the sound
judgment that deliberation promotes. Public deliberation isn’t a complete answer to “how;”
nonetheless, it can be part of the answer (Kettering Foundation, 2008: 46). Its contributions
are more than the results of forums, regardless of how many forums there are. And the effects
of public deliberation aren’t fully measured by changes in policy. Rather, it turns out that
deliberating with other citizens can lead to a profoundly different understanding of
democracy (Kettering Foundation, 2008: 46). In this regard, people have realized that politics
doesn’t have to be like the politics they hate, and have a better sense of what they can do to
make it better. Consequently, they have discovered the power to change within themselves.
8
Data and Method
Public deliberation or deliberative dialogue is a process, which is used in order to
exchange of knowledge, opinion, and allowed a room for all people to express their views
openly, with the common rules and regulations that agreed by the concerned parties. To this
respect, one of the most important processes which allows us to know about attitudes of
participants toward the deliberative dialogue and the future scenarios of Thailand is a use of
pre-questionnaires and post-questionnaires in order to explore their perspectives before and
after participating in the public deliberation, to see how their perspectives have been changed,
in particular.
Data for the analysis in this paper were taken from a pre-post survey conducted in a
nationwide deliberative forum facilitated by the King Prajadhipok’s Institute in 12 provinces
of Thailand during September 2012 and March 2014. The respondents derived from a mix
sampling method can be divided into two groups as follows:
First Group: The sampling of Thai citizens, who are randomized sampling from the
participants in each province. To this respect, the province, district, and sub-district are
chosen by random. Along with this line, 20% of the districts in each province will be chosen
form the complete list of districts. Then, name of residents, who live in the chosen districts,
will be selected for 80 participants as systematic sampling in this research study.
Second Group: the sampling of people who have a particular concerned issue, which
can be connected to this research study. To this respect, 20 participants of this sampling can
be the people who are supporter of their political groups, the outstanding leaders in society,
the concerned academics, the representatives of NGOs, and a group of civil society, who are
interested in such issues.
9
To categorize such groups of the sampling, it is a way to reaffirm that the number of
people, who involved with the issue of this research study, will not be disregarded. In the
meantime, it provides a room for the “silent group” to participate in this project as well.
However, the number of the sampling will be limited in order to prevent the domination to
the other in the public deliberation, which finally might come into the effect on failure of the
research study. In such the situation, the public deliberation will be advantages for a
particular group, not the whole country.
In total, there are 868 participants who answered the pre-questionnaires and 895
participants who answered the post-questionnaires, respectively. The following table shows
the results in details:
Table 1: Respondents divided by province
No.
Province
Pre-questionnaires Post-questionnaires
Number % Number %
1 Khon Kaen 92 82.0 85 76.0
2 Ang-Thong 77 86.0 77 86.0
3 Buriram 53 67.0 65 82.0
4 Phayao 44 57.0 63 81.0
5 Prachinburi 69 75.0 75 81.0
6 Nakhon Sawan 80 85.0 81 86.0
7 Nakhon Si Thammarat 52 79.0 54 82.0
8 Bangkok 112 97.0 99 86.0
9 Chainat 58 62.0 66 71.0
10 Roi-et 81 77.0 91 86.7
11 Chumporn 50 79.4 40 63.0
12 Uttaradit 100 80.0 99 79.2
10
Total 579 868 77.70 895
Results: Before and after participation in the public deliberation ion
The results of the questionnaire-analysis can be presented into two parts as follows:
1) Perspectives toward the desirable future images or deliberative dialogue
According to the researchers, who study about the future images of Thailand, which is
a sequel part of research study of the national reconciliation by King Prajadhipok’s Institute3,
there are four future scenarios as follows:
First Scenario: Society of Justice
Second Scenario: Society of Transparency (virtue and good governance)
Third Scenario: Society of Forgiveness (kindness)
Fourth Scenario: Society of Harmony and Peace (moral peace)
Then, the questionnaire of 17 questions, covering the abovementioned desirable future
images had been designed in order to study attitude, knowledge, and understanding of the
participants in the public deliberation. The criteria to weight score, analysis, and decoding
information is as follows:
Average Score: 0.00 means ‘Strongly Disagree’
Average Score: 1.00 means ‘Disagree’
Average Score: 2.00 means ‘Agree’
Average Score: 3.00 means ‘Strongly Agree’
3 King Prajadhipok’s Institute, proposed to the Standing Committee on the study the approach to national
reconciliation, House of Representatives, B.E.2555 (2012)
11
However, these four groups of desirable future scenarios had been categorized by
theory. After establishing a number of forum of public deliberation and survey the
participants’ perspectives both before and after the deliberation, researchers analyzed factors
in order to re-categorized the perspectives of the participants who participated in the public
deliberation for deliberative dialogue based on the questions in the questionnaire. To this end,
there are five important categories, which can explain to these groups of perspectives toward
deliberative dialogue, as shown in table 2.
Table 2: Group of perspectives toward the future images of Thailand and deliberative
dialogue4
Concept Sub-variables Communalities Rotated
Component
Matrix
1. Dictatorship
and Violence
Good law should be enacted by
leaders or rulers
.570 .695
Without regarding to the other
factors, strictly conform to the
law will make Thai society
peacefully.
.539 .534
To conform to the principle of
participation, which brings
about disadvantages, is
slowdown in implementation.
.413 .613
Election base on vote-buying
by offering money to
legitimate voters is beneficial
aspect to Thai people because
it is a matter of income
distribution to Thai people.
.528 .628
Using violence to solve the
problem is a method that can
rapidly solve the problem.
.471 .637
Once there is violence in the
society, it is difficult to discuss
for the solution.
.470 .534
4 Refer to the report of Deliberative Dialogue for Thailand Future, 2013
12
Concept Sub-variables Communalities Rotated
Component
Matrix
2. Peaceful
Method
We can decrease tension of
conflict by forgiving to each
other.
.518 .678
If people do realize their faults,
then forgive them.
.538 .685
Conflicts can be solved by
talking to each other.
.521 .669
3. Virtue and
Good
Governance
If people do not realize how
commit illegal practice they
did, we should not forgive
them.
.621 .778
People who commit illegal
practice will be chastened by
punishment so that they will
not repeat their illegal practice
once again.
.552 .637
Leaders who lack of virtue and
ethics in their mind will create
problems in the society.
.532 .686
4. Law
Enforcement
The society has rules and
regulations, so people who
commit illegal practice deserve
their punishment.
.596 .734
5. Forgiveness
with no
condition
The best forgiveness is the
forgiveness with no condition.
.671 .719
Note:
1. The value of communalities of variable is the proportion of the covariance and its statistical
significance for variable at its lowest as 0.00, which means there is no correlation, and its
significance as 1.0, which means the variable is the most significant variable of the group.
2. The significant variable of perspectives is dictatorship and violence, peaceful method, virtue and
good governance, law enforcement, and forgiveness with no condition, especially the first variable,
which is law enforcement, is the most significant factor.
3. The rotated component matrix was derived from factor analysis for all 17 variables.
13
When considering five significant factors to desirable future scenarios or deliberative
dialogue, which are 1) dictatorship and violence, 2) peaceful method, 3) virtue, 4) law
enforcement, and 5) forgiveness with no condition, compared to perspective both before and
after participating in the public deliberation, the result has been found as following table:
Table 3: Comparative average score of perspectives categorized by before and after
participating in the public deliberation
Group of
Perspectives
Before participating After participating F Sig.
Average SD Average SD
Dictatorship and
violence
1.90 0.51 1.87 0.53 0.317
Peaceful
method
2.58 0.60 2.60 0.63 5.129 **
Virtue and
Good
governance
2.22 0.85 2.20 0.81 2.986
Law
enforcement
2.93 0.74 2.74 0.85 33.576 **
Forgiveness
with no
condition
2.27 1.19 2.23 1.15 2.840
*, **, *** difference between perspectives before and after participating in the public deliberation is
statistically significant at 0.1, 0.5, 0.01 levels respectively.
14
Figure 1:
Comparative average of perspectives categorized by
before and after participating in the public deliberation
From the given Table 3 and Figure 1, the research project finds out that the best
approach in deliberative dialogue is “law enforcement,” which has the average at 2.93 and
2.74, before and after participating, which is statistical significance. The second most
important variable is “peaceful method”, which has the average at 2.58 and 2.60, before and
after participating, respectively.
For “forgiveness with no condition”, it has been found that the average is at 2.27 and
2.23, before and after participating, respectively. For using “Virtue and Ethics” principle, it
has been found that the average is at 2.22 and 2.20, before and after participating,
respectively. For “Dictatorship and Violence”, it has been found that the average is at 1.90
and 1.87, before and after participating, respectively, which is statistical significance..
In summary, the participants, who participated in the public deliberation and
answered in both pre-questionnaires and post-questionnaires, have the perspectives that the
most important factor is conforming to and complying with the laws, which the principle of
peaceful method is combined. Based on this ground, after participation, principle of peaceful
15
method is more acceptable for the participants. Along the line, the extreme approaches, like
law enforcement, forgiveness with no condition, and virtue and ethical principle are also
accepted for the participants. In the meantime, the participants think that the approach of
dictatorship and violence is the least important approach.
2) Attitude towards the public deliberation participation
For the question – “if members of the community participate in the public
deliberation, they will change their methods of discussion?”, the result is shown in the
following table:
Table 4: Percentage of perspectives toward the question, whether members of the
community will change their methods of discussion if they participate in the public
deliberation
Total Image
Change
Not Change
Total
Sig.
Before
participation
Number
651 144 795
**
%
81.9 18.1 100.0
After
Participation
Number
716 90 806
%
88.8 11.2 100.0
*, **, *** difference between perspectives before and after participating in the public deliberation is
statistically significant at 0.1, 0.5, 0.01 levels respectively.
16
Figure 2:
Percentage of methods of talking in community
in case people can participate in the public deliberation
For the issue of “changing methods of discussion when participating in the public
deliberation”, it has been found that there will be some changing in the total image. To this
end, the percentage of changing of the methods of discussion is 81.9 and 88.8 for before and
after the participating the public deliberation, respectively. This number is statistical
significance in changing.
In addition, there is another question concerning the issue of participation from
participating in the public deliberation. The question is “will the public deliberation can bring
about people’s participation?” The result is shown as following table:
Table 5: Percentage of perspectives toward the process of public deliberation can bring
about people’s participation
Total Image
Change
Not Change
Total
Sig.
Before
Participation
Number
736 57 793
** %
92.8 7.2 100.0
After
Number
773 19 792
17
Participation
%
97.6 2.4 100.0
*, **, *** difference between perspectives before and after participating in the public deliberation is
statistically significant at 0.1, 0.5, 0.01 levels respectively.
Figure 3:
Percentage of perspectives toward the process of
public deliberation can bring about people’s participation
When considering whether the process of public deliberation can create the people’s
participation, the result shows that the process can bring about people’s participation for the
total image. To this end, the percentage of the perspectives toward the process can bring
about the people’s participation is 92.8 and 97.6 for before and after the participating the
public deliberation, respectively. This difference is statistically significance at 0.5 level.
Concluding Remarks
In summary, the mixed methods for doing this research that the topic is very
complicated are very important o deliver the research outputs that are beneficial for policy
formulation and implementation. For this research, the result of analysis of survey
questionnaires toward the participants’ attitudes, both pre-questionnaires and post-
questionnaires in the public deliberation is that the public deliberation in twelve provinces
18
changes the methods of discussion, which is increased in the process. Also, the participants
think that the process can bring more participation.
For the concept towards the desirable future images and deliberative dialogue,
perspectives of the participants can be categorized into five groups as: 1) dictatorship and
violence, 2) peaceful method, 3) virtue and governance, 4) law enforcement, and 5)
forgiveness with no condition. To this respect, “law enforcement” is the most-wanted future
image for the participants, whilst the second most-wanted future images are “peaceful
method”. For the third and fourth most-wanted future images are “principle of forgiveness
with no condition” and “principle of virtue and ethics”, respectively. It means people view
law enforcement as the important factor. If people illegal practice, they should be punished,
accordingly. However, afterwards, if they realize that they did their illegal practice,
forgiveness is then offered, including using principle of deliberative dialogue to decrease
conflict. Along the line, good governance is still needed to solve the problem in the country.
On the other hand, the participants viewed the extreme approach, like dictatorship and
violence, as the least important factor. That is, the participants viewed that may not be able to
effectively solve conflicts in the country.
Therefore, the forum of public deliberation then can be a part of the processes, which
is able to bring about the atmosphere of reconciliation in Thai society in one way and lead to
an approach to solve the social problems in another way, as long as Thai people have better
understanding and correctly implement this process nationwide.
The result shows that the participants’ attitudes in those deliberative forums regarding
political conflicts and reconciliation in Thai society have changed from extremist, preferring
a use of either strictly law enforcement or forgiveness without condition in order to solve the
conflict, to the view that supports an inclusive dialogue process for improving relationship
between people in the society as well as a truth finding process that may bring about apology,
19
sympathy, and forgiveness. In order to reconcile Thai society, this paper thus suggests public
deliberation to be inclusively established throughout the country to allow people from all
sectors to deliberate on Thailand future.
20
References
Abu-Nimer, Mohammed (ed.). 2001. Reconciliation, Justice, and Coexistence: Theory and
Practice. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
Bercovitch, Jacob, Victor Kremenyuk, and William I. Zartman (eds.). 2009. The SAGE
Handbook of Conflict Resolution. London: Sage.
Bessette, J. M. 1980. Deliberative Democracy: The Majority Principle in Republican
Government. In Robert Goldwin and William Schambra (Eds.), How Democratic is
the Constitution? (pp.102-116). Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute for
Public Policy Research.
Chaiwat Satha-anand. 2003. Armed with Life?: Critical Concept on Violence (in Thai).
Bangkok: Fah Deaw Kun.
Elster, J. 1998. Deliberative Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Estlund, D.M. 2008. Democratic Authority: A Philosophical Framework. New Jersey:
Princeton University Press.
Fischer, F. (2003). Reframing Public Policy: Discursive Politics and Deliberative Practices.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Fung, A. 2005. Deliberation before the Revolution: Toward an Ethics of Deliberative
Democracy. Political Theory 33 (3): 397-419.
Gutmann, A. & Thompson, D. 1996. Democracy and Disagreement. Massachusetts: Harvard
University Press.
. 2004. Why Deliberative Democracy? Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University
Press.
21
Huyse, Luc. 1998. “Transitional Justice.” In Democracy and Deep-Rooted Conflict: Options
for Negotiators, eds. Peter Harris and Ben Reilly. Sweden, Lujbljana.
Kettering Foundation. 2008. We Have to Choose Democracy and Deliberative Politics.
<http://kettering.org/wp-content/uploads/WeHaveToChoose-.pdf> Access October 4,
2013.
Mansbridge, J. 1999. Everyday Talk in the Deliberative System. In Macedo, S. (Ed.),
Deliberative Politics: Essays on Democracy and Disagreement (pp. 211-239).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rigby, Andrew. 2001. Justice and Reconciliation: After the Violence. Boulder. CO: Lynne
Rienner.
Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Thailand. 2011. The First Interim Report Covered
the period 17 July, 2010 – 16 January, 2011. Bangkok: Office of Truth and
Reconciliation Commission of Thailand.
Vanchai Vattanasapt. 2550. Conflict: Principles and Resolution Tools, third edition (in Thai).
Khonkaen: Siripan Offset.
Weiner, Eugene (ed.). 1998. The Handbook of Interethnic Coexistence. New York:
Continuum.
Young, I. M. 2001. Activist Challenges to Deliberative Democracy. Political Theory 29 (5):
670-690.
22
Appendix
The research project on
“Future of Thailand and Desirable Politics”
The research study of “Future of Thailand and Desirable Politics” is a sequel part of
the project study on how to bring about the national reconciliation. The objective of the study
is to study approaches to solve the problem of political conflict and look forward to the future
of the country and regime of democracy, which is needed for the society. To this end, a
number of the public deliberations have been established in twelve provinces – Khon Kaen,
Ang-Thong, Buriram, Phayao, Prachinburi, Nakhon Sawan, Nakhon Si Thammarat, Bangkok
Chainat, Roi-et, Chumporn, and Uttaradit – in order to seek for the public deliberations.
There are five steps in this research methodology.
2.1) Study about fundamental data, concept, theory, and related review of literature in
terms of democracy, political behavior of Thai people, and major principles of the country
administration, i.e. good governance, rule of law, concept of conflict and the approach to
solve the conflict, as well as democracy of deliberative dialogue;
2.2) Collect data from the public deliberation, and prepare related document for the
forum, as well as distribute pre-questionnaires and post-questionnaires to the participant
attended to the forum, both before and after participating, respectively;
2.3) Train the staffs who work as the coordinator in this research study;
2.4) Invite of the participated sampling, which can be divided into two groups. The
first group consists of the sampling of Thai citizens, who are randomized sampling from the
participants in each province. To this respect, the province, district, and sub-district are
chosen by random. Along with this line, 20% of the districts in each province will be chosen
23
form the complete list of districts. Then, name of residents, who live in the chosen districts,
will be selected for 80 participants as systematic sampling in this research study. The second
group includes the purposive sampling of people who have a particular concerned issue,
which can be connected to this research study. To this respect, 20 participants of this
sampling can be the people who are supporter of their political groups, the outstanding
leaders in society, the concerned academics, the representatives of NGOs, and a group of
civil society, who are interested in such issues.
2.5) Collect data with the open process in the available areas of the province,
regarding to location, facilities and equipment. To this respect, team of researchers play their
role as the coordinator for the process of public deliberation with the friendly setting that the
concerned parties can peacefully exchange their views and respectfully accept other opinions
in the public deliberation process. As the coordinator, they also participate in the practical
process with the target group.
Along the line, before and after the process of public deliberation, the questionnaires
will be distributed to the participants in order to explore whether the public deliberation is
accepted by the participants and whether the participating in this public deliberation process
can adjust the target group’s attitudes or understanding or not.
