MARC SAXER| THAILAND CAUGHT IN THE VERTIGO OF CHANGE beration over the root causes of the crisis and ways on how to resolve the conflict. n Transformation crises are fraught with various social dilemmas. In social conflict, situations can occur in which two groups might not cooperate, even if it is in the best interest of both to do so. In Thailand, such a prisoner‘s dilemma can be observed in the security sector, where security agencies and civil oversight bod­ies justify their non-compliance to democratic norms by pointing to the respective behaviour of the other side. In the run-up to the elections, Thaksin’s adversa­ries faced such a dilemma when threatened with the wrath of the former Prime Minister: Should they reach out to the likely winner of the election, or join the pha­lanx of his antagonist? This shows that the hoped for »Grand Bargain« may fail to materialise due to a lack of trust between key actors. And it is trust, after all, that has been destroyed in the hard-hitting and some­times violent conflict. Therefore, a broad consultancy process must be embedded in a reconciliation process that could restore trust as the basic foundation of hu­man interaction. n For a unified society that is used to top-down decision­making, pluralist deliberation can come as a shock. In a vertical order, if things go wrong, there is always the ultimate authority as the decision-maker of last resort. The basic trust that the free play of social forces – or even the perpetual conflict between self-interests and opposed values – can produce an optimal solution for society at large takes some time to develop. For the vertical and unified political culture of Thailand, it is particularly challenging to embrace inclusive and horizontal negotiation processes. Therefore, it comes as little surprise that the societal deliberation process is currently being blocked. In order to organise a process of renegotiation of the social contract, the obstacles laid out above need to be taken into account. Accordingly, the deliberation process should follow these guiding principles: n Inclusive and Horizontal Consultation Process At the centre of the political conflict lies the crisis of legitimacy of the vertical order. Hence, it is impossible to build new legitimacy if elites strike a deal among themselves and then force a new constitution upon society. In general, the idea to channel the confron­tation between opposing ideals of political legitimacy into some parliamentary-based framework 17 is laud­able. Still, a parliamentary committee or a constitu­tional reform commission can easily be dismissed for being too exclusive or even elitist. The challenge is to organise an inclusive and horizontal process that al­lows all stakeholders to present their interests, values, and perspectives. n Deliberation Needs Rules In Thailand, dissenting views have long been cut off by a unified culture, steep social hierarchies, and po­litical suppression. Today, actors across the spectrum feel justified in making swipes full of absurd compa­risons, excessive allegation, and offensive language. In the heated atmosphere of the political conflict, the prefer»red« mode of debate seems to be the big stick. On the other side, for some it still seems to be challenging to deal even with justified and moderate criticism. Finally, state authorities cite verbal abuses in justifying their repression of freedom of speech, even if these measures are clearly aimed to quiet mode­rate critics. Deliberation should be oriented towards Jürgen Habermas’ ideal situation of speech, and prin­cipally aim to reach understanding. In other words: Thailand needs to submit its discussion culture to a set of communicative rules that can moderate the tone and focus the political struggle on the issues at hand. n Focus on the Big Picture Especially the institutional engineers are seeking to resolve the crisis by designing an optimal institutional framework. However, the sobering experiences with constitutional reform should serve as a warning not to underestimate the interplay of institutional changes in a complex societal system. In any case, it is impossible to organise an inclusive and horizontal societal con­sultation process around technical debates on institu­tional design. Deliberation should rather focus on the bigger normative picture, and settle on a set of objec­tives and principles that can provide direction in the design of the institutional landscape. Society should build a compass to guide the transformation process with a view to maintaining the momentum of demo­cratisation once it has been built. 17. Phongpaichit and Baker, Thaksin, p. 363, cited in Mark Askew, 2010, p. 19. 13