ARTICLE

COMMENTS (0)

RECOMMEND (282)

FACEBOOK

TWITTER

PLUSONE

MORE

E-MAIL

PRINT

TEXT SIZE

Under British colonial rule and during the parliamentary period in the 1950s, the ABFSU was a legal organization, which represented the interests of university students. Since the student union was destroyed by the Ne Win regime in 1962, forcing the organization to go underground, the ABFSU has had a long and rich history of UG life.

The ABFSU was very active during the 1988 demonstrations and early 1989 election campaign period, but then the organization had to go completely underground again because of massive arrests. I worked openly with the ABFSU during the 1988-89 period and continued to work with them, while living in hiding in Burma, from 1989-1997.

There are several misconceptions about UG work and activities, some of which are a result of the inherent limitations of this form of political activity. Because we have to operate under conditions of severe repression and must maintain secrecy at all costs to protect our members, we unavoidably need to limit our community to trustworthy and reliable groups of activists. Security concerns compel us to create an atmosphere of inner-circle politics, which excludes many people. This is unfortunate, because some of those who are not included might have great potential. These measures to block the infiltration of spies limit us to forming small solid groups. Rather than recruiting broadly, potential recruits are usually approached in a cautious manner. When we want to recruit someone into the heart of our established group, it takes a long process of examination.

Occasionally major demonstrations break out which spontaneously generate new activists and leaders, such as during the 1996 December student movement. But during politically quiet periods, it is hard for us to recruit a new generation of reliable and efficient activists. Another problem with the way that our UG networks have been operating is that they cannot follow democratic practices such as accountability and transparency all the time.

In practice, there are also unintended and unfortunate side effects of UG-style politics. One of the most important side effects is that it tends to make activists misunderstand what engaging in politics means, especially when the political climate is seemingly quiet.

Many UG activists come to assume that politics consists solely of producing, distributing or circulating pamphlets and staging protests, with the anticipated outcome being that one day or another, they will be arrested and given a lengthy prison sentence. This misconception discourages activists. Some see political work as not worth the sacrifice and some end up leaving politics altogether.

But this should not discourage activists. They should not come to the unjustified conclusion that UG work is ineffective. It is tremendously effective in many ways, and it has great strengths. A review of the history of the student movement in Burma demonstrates that all of the greatest achievements have come from UG politics. Also, I would like to make it clear that these limitations and misconceptions are not all due to the intrinsic nature of the UG. It would be incorrect to assume that the nature of UG necessarily breeds these limitations and misconceptions. The main problem is not the nature of UG work but our own misunderstandings. Most Burmese students haven’t understood (or have been vague about) the true nature of UG work. We have been confusing UG work and non-violent resistance.

Changing Perceptions

The concept of UG originated in Burma during World War II, when the country was under Japanese occupation. Many groups, such as communists, socialists, youth associations, people from the education sector, government personnel, British army veterans, and Christian religious groups began doing UG political activities in order to wage a resistance movement against Japanese rule.