Burma at a Crossroads (Part II): An Analysis of Societal Resistance

By MIN ZIN Friday, August 12, 2011

COMMENTS (9)

RECOMMEND (521)

TEXT SIZE

(Page 3 of 3)

Whether or not such a scenario is desirable requires more analysis that is beyond the scope of this article.

In summary, the societal forces—“the insiders,” “the mainstreamers” and even the general masses—play a crucial role in intermediating political outcomes. However, if “the insiders”— those who simultaneously embed in and contest the existing game—and “the mainstreamers” or “principled opposition groups”—those who hold sway over substantive public support and Western backing—fail to coordinate in intermediating the regime-led political transition, the people of Burma will have to bear the endless suffering of Sisyphean struggle.

Min Zin is a Burmese journalist living in exile.

« previous 1 | 2 | 3 |

COMMENTS (9)

Fred Wrote:

27/08/2011

I differ with Moe Aung. Practical people can deal with practical people.

Stiglitz’s policies are appropriate for more developed economies. Maybe the UN can refer more appropriate people.

Thein Sein says he wants to turn the nation around. I’ll give him a chance.

In the past few years, the government has used economic tricks, such as special economic zones, like what jump started the Chinese economy. To convert from socialism, they put chunks of their economy on sale to foreigners, to raise money and get them to invest. Burma can do this more sanely.

For example, odds are good that Burma has world class deposits of gold, silver, copper, lead, and/or zinc. International mining companies would drool at the chance to find out. But the bad will created by striking a deal with corrupt generals prevents them from acting. If you bring in an economist who knows how to structure mining deals that instead puts money into the Burmese treasury, I think Thein Sein would hire him.

Moe Aung Wrote:

26/08/2011

As for the economy, it's the political will, stupid!

Any number of able and eminent economists such as Joseph Stiglitz before and now our own U Myint may well be talking to a brick wall.

Moe Aung Wrote:

26/08/2011

The current strategy of wooing ASSK is confirmation if ever needed of whom the regime(vis-a-vis international players)continues to see as the real opposition, parliamentary opposition safely in the bag as it were.

It is not so much the unity and concerted efforts of 'insiders' and the above ground 'principled opposition' as that of the above and underground 'principled opposition' that must be realized in order to move forward.

The generals don't expect to lose to any other group. Every move they make will be in aid of their own longevity in office, always ahead of the game with all the cards at their disposal.

The rest can either muddle along as best they could, tentatively and slowly trying to push the boundaries of political space which may take forever,or they could take the initiative and plan proactively to achieve their goal of winning the fight. There's hardly any time to lose.

Fred Wrote:

15/08/2011

To quote the essay: “Recently, the new government appeared to offer a three-pronged approach to the opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi, which are (1) recognition of the existing regime, (2) talks between government representative Aung Kyi and Suu Kyi, and (3) the latter’s involvement in government poverty alleviation efforts.”

1) This is only a theoretical matter, which can be ignored for years, as long as all parties agree. Hopefully it will be resolved in the future at a time when it is easier to do so. For now, both parties will have to decide whether they wants meaningful results, or just a theoretical victory.

2) When people talk, there is the chance of something good happening.

3) The government is trying to give The Lady something mutually acceptable to do. She is unlikely to produce anything of consequence, no matter how hard she tries. The real problem is the structure of the economy, worth a few long essays in itself. The economic skills necessary to solve this are not rare.

kerry Wrote:

15/08/2011

Peace is such a simple human need. Education, health care and family life are so possible for everyone in Burma. Peace is just letting the people decide.

Why why why are those who cannot understand that every person is of value, so resolute, greedy, archaic and destructive?

Human consciousness has reached new 'uniform' and 'businesslike' lows in parts of the false face (internal and imported) of synthetically busy 'Myanmar'. The individuals responsible seem so far removed from 21st century humanity. yet everyone can see them so clearly!

Change cannot be far away. This absurd situation is inhuman and untenable.Even conscienceless China must be deeply embarrassed and feeling totally exposed, for its inhumanity and avarice in yet another vulnerable nation.

Ko Htike Wrote:

14/08/2011

Well written. But I feel like these articles were intended for foreign audience or may be just to show the author's academic skill.

tocharian Wrote:

13/08/2011

Its the Chinese stupid!
(Is this editorial going to be a part of Min Zin's Ph.D. thesis?)

khar Wrote:

13/08/2011

change, meaningful change in burma can't be brought about by meaningless non-arm, ghandinian movement. the only way for ethnic minority to achieve equality and progress in burma is by armed not just resistence, but fighting, not just when necessary but always initiating the fight, primarily using quarrilla (spelling) warfare tectics and strategy and army building through engaging in profit making businesses and taxation. once ethnic armies are strong enough, there's two results; independence or self-automony. that's the only way for us in Burma, and other buddhist countries to become free for us the minorities.

Myanmar Patriots Wrote:

13/08/2011

Real pseudo-intellectual claptrap!Citing alien's sayings, forgetting the realities of real Burma, not understanding the nature of power struggle.Remember the dominant power prevails.OK?

When you keep sucking up to the dead coloniser, dictate of Clement of Attlee - Panglong, when you are so treasonous to suck up to traitor SuuKyi, all the rest is irrelevant.
Now the Desperate Housewife of Oxford is suing her brother and a newspaper. How very funny!