Some observers are hopeful this fresh attempt can bridge the tension-filled divide between opposing political factions. Others doubt we will see light at the end of the tunnel any time soon.

Scepticism seems inevitable given that several committees tasked with the same mission have made little headway under previous governments. Among them were panels headed by such luminaries as former prime minister Anand Panyarachun, prominent social critic Prawase Wasi, former attorney general Kanit Nanakorn, ex-senator Direk Thungfang, and even former coup leader General Sonthi Boonyaratglin.

Each conducted its own inquiry into the root causes of the conflict and how reconciliation could be reached. They also offered suggestions based on public testimony by people on both sides of the divide.

Few of their proposals were ever put into practice, rendering their efforts a waste of time and money. The powers-that-be merely cherry-picked a few “safe” proposals while discarding any that might threaten their status or interests.

Kanit’s Truth for Reconciliation Commission fielded opinions from various conflicting factions before making concrete suggestions for reaching peace. Its inquiry delved beyond the political violence to reveal its roots in longstanding social tensions, resentment and recrimination.

The panel’s final report diagnosed inequality of access to national resources as the main culprit.

The Kanit commission proposed granting amnesty to lawbreakers whose offences stemmed from their political beliefs. However, it cautioned against expediting a pardon, saying it should only come after the causes of political tension had been tackled.

But the Pheu Thai-led government had a different priority, preferring to push a bill for a blanket amnesty that would cover even those found guilty of criminal acts in connection with the political crisis. That move prompted street protests that eventually led to the military coup in May 2014.

Now, critics are questioning the post-coup government’s sincerity in pushing for national reconciliation. They say that further study is pointless given the wealth of research and suggestions already available thanks to previous inquiries.

The consensus reached is that longstanding social inequality and injustice are the root causes of the conflict. While these remain ignored, any calls for unity will be empty.

Past reconciliation efforts have failed because those in power have maintained a private agenda centred on self-interest rather than the national interest. Another serious obstacle has been the widespread tendency to stubbornly insist on preconceived “solutions” while paying little attention to the problems. However laudable our goal, without a step-by-step process that involves both sides we cannot advance towards the destination.

So what goal does the current junta-backed government have in mind with its latest reconciliation effort? Is it political amnesty and a “national unity government” without opposition, or deeper reconciliation driven by a commitment to open and democratic governance?

The answer will dictate whether this fresh push for reconciliation succeeds, or merely becomes the latest in a long line of failures.