Who can argue if I say that Burma is politically stable? I say that only half jokingly whenever someone asks about Burma's politics. Indeed, it's not incorrect.
Look at its neighbor, Thailand, which is politically and economically several decades ahead of Burma. Political turmoil of different colors—the Red shirts, the Yellow shirts, the multi-colored shirts—is sweeping over Thailand and destabilizing the country. It looks like a simmering civil war. The Burmese generals would call it “anarchy.”
Kyaw Zwa Moe is managing editor of the Irrawaddy magazine. He can be reached at [email protected].
Burma is seen as Banana Republic, but, after 1988, you seldom see coups and volatile political situations—everything goes along in accord with the generals' will: their rule, their laws and their orders.
The generals have never allowed anti-government protests to go on for weeks or months, to close airports or shopping centers, to build enough momentum to destabilize “the peace and order.”
As an example, look at the 2007 monk-led demonstrations. Within a week or so, the ruling military regime had shot, beat up and arrested hundreds of monks and citizens, including journalists. The protest was quickly over; "tranquility" was restored.
Look at Burma's modern history. The country has been ruled by one government since 1962.
Today's government is “the great grandson” of the military regime which staged the 1962 coup led by Gen Ne Win. Since then, there have been six governments, really in name only:
Ne Win called his regime the Revolutionary Council and in 1974, it was transformed into the “Burmese Way to Socialism,” officially called the Burma Socialist Programme Party. The socialist regime was toppled by the 1988 people uprising, Ne Win handed over power to former Brig-Gen Sein Lwin who was known as the “Butcher” for his brutal suppression of successive student-led demonstrations since 1962. He ruled the country only for 17 days. The power then went to Dr Maung Maung, the only civilian president, who was loyal to Ne Win. He lasted only a few weeks. In September 1988, the current regime assumed (not really a coup) power under the name of the State Law and Order Restoration Council. In 1997, the regime was renamed the State Peace and Development Council.
That's a lot of different names, but in essence it's just a string of like-minded military generals in charge of the government.
How about Burma's future, especially after the upcoming election?
There are hints. In the parliament, 25 percent of the seats will be given to military appointees by the junta, according to the 2008 Constitution. To block real democracy in parliament, there are the recent electoral laws and regulations, which are designed to keep political parties under tight control.
That's why the main opposition party, the National League for Democracy (NLD), unanimously decided not to register the party to contest the election. One positive consequence for the generals is that they don't have to worry that the NLD will sweep the elections like in 1990.
The NLD decision by detained pro-democracy icon Aung San Suu Kyi was a blow to the credibility of the junta's election, but beyond triggering international criticism it's not to have much impact on Burma's politics.
Let's look at another authoritarian state, the Sudan. The United States recognized the recent election victory by the party of President Omar Hassan aal-Bashir, who is wanted by the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity.
The US said it will engage with the new government even though the electoral process was not judged to be free or fair.
State Department spokesperson P.J. Crowley said this week, “It did not, broadly speaking, meet international standards. [But] I think we recognize that the election is a very important step.”
Maybe the US sees a flawed election as better than no election. If so, how about its stand on Burma and its statements regarding the junta's election—calling for it to be inclusive, free and fair and for the release of more than 2,000 political prisoners prior to the election?
Personally I would like to see the opposition in charge starting tommorow and the military without any role in government at all.
But let's be reasonable: many soldiers have been working in the civil service. The Tatmadaw is in fact the only institution with any hands-on experience in Burma, experience of which the opposition has none.
If the opposition takes over 100 percent this will probably result in instant failure, new unrest and, maybe, a new coup. The public will be unhappy if they don't see results soon.
So the only viable scenario is a transition wherein the opposition AND the military are involved, both in a meaningful way. The role of the international community would be to support the new government quickly with money and humanitarian aid. So the new government can show some quick results before the public gets impatient with them. Both partners can build trust also.
All the revolution preachers should realize that they are merely sowing the seeds of new misery in the future.
Moe Aung Wrote:
05/05/2010
Myanmar Patriot 4 UMPF
1. Nearly five decades of military dictatorship have been hardly conducive to any other group gaining experience in politics or governing.
What passes for higher education leaves much to be desired. People glean as much knowledge as they can within a very restrictive and stifling environment. There's no way you can keep the Burmese nation down forever.
Of course we all know how well educated, knowledgeable and openminded your generals are.
2. Power sharing will be basically between the military and the USDP if things go according to plan. Parliament will be made up of generals, former generals and their lackeys to all intents and purposes. Expect the inevitable power struggle between those in uniform with troops under their command and those out of uniform. So watch this space.
3. 'Burma's political system is in a big mess.' You are telling me! I wonder who made it this way. ASSK?
4. The 'SANGHA did NOT represent ALL', but I'm guessing the military does?
Garrett Wrote:
05/05/2010
Myanmar Patriot4 UMPF: "OBAMA had loads of experience; he is someone with a law degree and was a governor. Knowledge and experience are indispensable."
Huh?
First of all, you apparently have spent so much time creating a persona for your imaginary claimant to the non-existant throne of Burma, that you are now attempting to spin a persona for Barack Obama, who prior to being elected President, was a Senator, not a governor.
As US Senators go, you would have had a difficult time finding someone who had done less than Senator Obama, or someone who had remained silent on important issues more often than Senator Obama.
Just as his ill-informed Burma strategy is a clear example of how ineptly Obama's foreign policies are being handled, his downward-spiraling approval ratings are clearly showing what the citizens who voted for him think of his abilities to run the country.
Tom Tun Wrote:
04/05/2010
Mr. Selene,
Did you notice how much the Chinese government profits from Burma by backing the Burmese regime?
Forget about moral and ethical philosophy for a moment. We have the human power and backup of the citizens. If the country is changing, not only Chinese, everyone will profit. We are a civilised people and our culture taught to us to be grateful for helping hands.
Do you know why Western countries are getting behind China so far so fast? Because you guys fail to get into the mind of Asian people. Obama and western policy are a copy cat of Chinese old policy. Whether good or bad, we will deal with it. The reality is, that is not how the West was in history. The last generation of the West was an honorable, justice loving people.
I read so many books of western society and try to learn the greatness and success of the West. The Eastern thinking is just natural to me, because I am from there.
Myanmar Patriot 4 UMPF Wrote:
02/05/2010
1."..Even so, who had ever heard of Obama just a few years ago?" OBAMA had loads of experience; he is someone with a law degree and was a governor. Knowledge and experience are indispensable.
"No new administration would ever get into office if 'without experience and knowledge and all the big problems at hand' they are barred from it. THIS IS sheer convenient and purposeful thinking on behalf of NLD and other political parties. TRUTH is Burmese political activists have disproportionatley much greater ambition than their education, understanding of political realities (as they never had a chance to learn); it is a chicken-and-egg problem. HENCE power sharing under the 2008 constitution is a GOOD start. The military can eventually go back to the barracks, provided politicans can run the country safe from external threats.
3.Burma's political system is in a big mess.
4.Was it logical for the Sangha of all people to rise up in September 2007? COMMENT:5%,if that, of SANGHA did NOT represent ALL.
chanlawn Wrote:
01/05/2010
Dr.Myo.THI-HA Wrote:
"According to the Myanmar history, our country could not be stabilized without Military. 100% already proved by history."
Yes, it is right because Burmans want to control on other ethnic groups. If you want to control ethnic groups, indeed you need the military 100 percent. If you let other ethnic groups free and let them manage their own affairs, you don't need the military. You guys are also free from your own military rule. You guys could not because you guys thought you guys are the only group who know how to rule. What arrogance!
Garrett Wrote:
01/05/2010
An incoming democratic government would hardly be without a civilian government infrastructure, although like the military and national police force, there would have to be adjustments to replace corrupt officials.
Thanks to the greed of the SPDC, an incoming democratic government would also have sources of income, although their customers would likely have to pay more of a market based price rather than giving it away cheap.
And if any part of the wealth stolen from Burma could be recovered, it could be used as well.
The free government could perhaps request UN peacekeepers to help neutralize the military pending reorganization, and some combination of the Iraqi most-wanted deck of cards concept, and the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission concept could be helpful.
Above all, kangaroo courts, looting and allowing hardliner Burman nationalists to spark Iraq-style ethnic clashes should be carefully avoided.
Unite and prepare to govern.
Moe Aung Wrote:
30/04/2010
Adam Selene
No new administration would ever get into office if 'without experience and knowledge and all the big problems at hand' they are barred from it. You may be right on the premise of the de facto two party system taking turns in the US and Britain. Even so, who had ever heard of Obama just a few years ago?
We are certainly not averse to learning from the West, though we more readily acquire its decadent than its progressive trends and ideas, human nature being what it is.
The NLD has a steep learning curve still ahead of it, but it's going in the right direction.
Plenty of illogical behavior by Western standards on the part of both sides of the divide in Burma. You only have to reflect on your own bemusement and frustration over what's been going on. Was it logical for the Sangha of all people to rise up in September 2007? Did any Western pundit foresee that happening? Did you?
Adam Selene Wrote:
29/04/2010
Moe Aung wrote: "You will continue to be surprised by seemingly illogical developments in future. We'll get there in our own way."
I don't see any evidence in the past for this. So on what precisely do you base this statement?
I know many people, including the SPDC, are using this "Burmese culture" argument, but the fact is that Burma is lagging behind not the other way around. Burma could learn a lot from the west. We've been there before.
I think the NLD should've been realistic. Lets face it: if they don't want to be included in the slow process the SPDC they seem to opt for wrestling all power from the army at once.
In some ways that would be the right thing to do (although there is no way they can achieve this), because the current government is illegitimate.
But it would be dangerous too. Is there anybody in his or her right mind on this planet who thinks that a party like the NLD is ready to govern Burma, without experience and knowledge and all the big problems at hand?
Moe Aung Wrote:
29/04/2010
Adam Selene
Western logic unfortunately doesn't apply to the Burmese who are by nature headstrong and passionate about whatever they believe in.
Intransigence as you've witnessed is a two way street in Burma, the opposition based on firm principles and the junta on their firm grip on power which will eventually be wrested of by force.
You will continue to be surprised by seemingly illogical developments in future. We'll get there in our own way.
Ngal Hriang Wrote:
28/04/2010
Do we need ten more years for democracy after waiting for more than twenty years? Than Shwe is supposed to be ready for a pure democracy after taking too long time. What we are seeing is another nightmare. When Saw Maung promised us a genuine democracy, Than Shwe was his vice chairman. Than Shwe cannot separate himself from what Saw Maung said. Do the Burmese military government want to see the blood flowing throughout the nation? Where is self-claimed nationalists' love of the nation? Do they want more hatred among different ethnic groups? I feel so sad that we all will see bad things again soon in our beloved country.
Garrett Wrote:
28/04/2010
I believe that DASSK's Nobel Peace Prize
signaled an end to the legitimacy of the Nobel award committee, & like the award to Obama, it was used for the purpose of political coersion. Unlike Obama, DASSK was deserving of the honors which the Nobel Peace Prize was originally meant to represent. However, it seems likely that the peace prize was given to DASSK preemptively to keep her from continuing to call for the massive nationwide nonviolent Gandhian protests which like Gandhi's Satyagraha, would have been met with brutality. Surely, the "peace" prize must have saved hundreds, if not thousands of lives.
Sadly, since 1990 Burma's citizens have suffered national poverty, & Burmese ethnic minorities have been persecuted, enslaved, & starved to death. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Burmese men, women, & children behind the Bamboo Curtain have been sacrificed to gain NOTHING but wealth & ethnic revenge for those in power.
Unite, protest, prepare to govern, overcome fear.
Adam Selene Wrote:
27/04/2010
To clarify: the responsibility of the NLD to the people that support them was to choose the most efficient strategy and get the biggest result. There were a couple of options:
- Waiting for the international community to unite and do something. That won't happen. Self interest is leading here.
- Joining the process and try to maxime what little influence was granted over time.
- Continuing non-violently and getting outlawed. Well, without some force to back this up there is no way the generals will feel the need to come to the bargaining table to talk to ASSK.
- A "boycott" by the opposition of the election. This won't work, partly because the opposition is not united and also because the international community is going to accept the outcome of the elections anyway.
- Full fledged rebellion, with the risk of civil war.
So, Tom Tun and other 'hardliners' what do you think would've been the best strategy?
Please wake up and smell the roses.
Adam Selene Wrote:
27/04/2010
Dear Tom Tun, clearly you don't understand what I mean. I don't say the NLD has to start killing. The only thing I say is that the Burmese opposition needs to be more realistic, about its own goals and strategies as well as well as about international support.
Don't expect international help. International diplomacy is about muscles and self profit. Thats the cold hearted reality. No help for Burma is forthcoming. This election process will only give some countries an alibi to soften their stance and try to get some economic benefits.
So if the opposition is on its own, they need to take into account what they want and what their means are. What I say is that the non-violent way will only work if there's a threat of instability. Thats how it went in India, Burma in 1947 and in South Africa.
As the opposition currently doesnt have that muscle, they should have tried to get included in the process. They didn't, hence their irrelevance from now on. Isn't that quite a silly tactic?
Tom Tun Wrote:
27/04/2010
Adam Selene,
Your writing describes your hypocracy clearly. Do you want to know why? Because, you did not describe any of the world revolution, particularly about India and Ghandi. Did command India force when he fought for his believes? Did US fight for independence and Frence revolution command the military?
All of those revolutions command only the ordinary citizens not the military. People are oppressed and military is oppressor.
Sounds like you don't even know who is our friends and who is our enemies, yet you try to get in our discussion. How foolish of you to think that we don't see what is going on. You better come up with better argument than the one that you have now. NLD and DASSK do not want any violence toward any human being, period.
We are showing them humanity. The value of talking is better than the one using guns. The good solution can be found by talking, not by killing or terrorizing. Wake up Mr. Selene.
Garrett Wrote:
27/04/2010
Let's face it, taking advantage of dictatorships is simply good business. When the "Free World" is so busy making high profits in nations where there are low wages & brutal dictators who amass fortunes acting as fences for stolen natural resources, the leaders of those "Free World" nations must protect the profits of the corporations which paid for their campaigns.
I strongly believe that the leaders of the "Free World" are still capable of assisting countries like Burma & Sudan to gain their freedoms, but it won't come without prolonged actions by the Burmese and Sudanese citizens on their own behalf.
"Emerald cool we may be, as water in cupped hands, but oh that we might be as splinters of glass in cupped hands. Glass splinters, the smallest with its sharp, glinting power to defend itself against hands that try to crush, could be seen as a vivid symbol of the spark of courage that is an essential attribute of those who would free themselves from the grip of oppression" -DASSK
Dr.Myo.THI-HA Wrote:
26/04/2010
Nobel Peace Prize is not benefit for 60 million Myanmar people.
Nobel Peace Prize doesn't make any sense for basic living of all Myanmar people. People want food, good sleep, Job opportunity, freedom of talking, safe life and uncorrupted justice.
What all we want is to survive peacefully in daily life (enough basic food and life security) Whoever leading the country is not a matter for all people.
Some seemed to be as disappointed as too much loyality to ASSK and too much Anti to military. Why?
Moe Aung Wrote:
25/04/2010
Old wine in new bottle is what it's going to be. This penchant for rebranding and repackaging characterizes the brave new world where globalization, the latest stage of international capitalism, prevails.
After all the West still dominates and fashions the world order as it suits them.
Whilst we do benefit from the new digital era, the basic tenets of the world order, new according to George Bush Sr and the rest of them, have not undergone any significant change at all.
Profits before people remains the real agenda, and the rest is mostly window dressing in moral and ethical terms for the purpose of concealing and justifying the bottom line.
That's how, as the author stipulates, change actually means stability to a system. Thus the regime also seeks change i.e. reforms in the way it governs in order to stabilize its grip on power.
In a way, overreliance on the international community (read the West here) not only plays into the hands of the junta, it creates a culture of dependence.
A.M.O Wrote:
24/04/2010
Well, Thai present crisis makes you recollect Gen Ne Win's final speech on his ungracious end as- "We guys shoot to kill, nothing else"; whereby gracious Thai army don't shoot; thereby junta achieved stability & verified Mao's famous motto- 'Power grows out of the barrel of a gun'.
So,junta will never give up the gun; and students & protesters will still be shot in the streets, until & unless a national, social & political issues are resolved once & for all. If these issues are not resolved, recurring crises shall keep on coming even if junta change pseudonyms for umpteenth times.
But in this changing world, it is impossible to impede changes by using gun only.
Observation shows clearly that if junta is shortsighted, unimaginative & frightened (which they are), they will rigidly resist change & thereby escalate the risks of violence & their own destruction - as people can see clearly that a repeat history of '88 crisis is in the making now.
Options are open for junta now.
Tom Tun Wrote:
24/04/2010
I remember the last election campaign of US. The two candidates Obama and senator Mc Cain. Obama constantly used the word "CHANGE" and change is comming. Most population of the world thought change for positive. Just minority group knew that the change is for worse. The impact of that election shake Burmese politic too. First, Obama administration policy choose to engage with Burmese regime. Which support regime's nesty behaviour. I believe Obama administration will not acknowledge or admit their mistakes. This imply to UN too. All of those BIG POWER countries and organizations want to push us to their way, but they do not realize that we are not too stupid anymore. For positive change in Burma, if political climate is going just like today, it will be another 4 decades. In this human struggle, there are 3 giant shame go to (1) UN (2) Obama administration (3) China.
George Than Setkyar Heine Wrote:
24/04/2010
State Department spokesperson P.J. Crowley said this week, “It did not, broadly speaking, meet international standards. [But] I think we recognize that the election is a very important step.”
The writing is on the wall already.
Than Shwe needs only to hold his 2010 farce and would be duly recognized as well no doubt.
By recognizing Omar Hassan aal-Bashir, wanted by the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity, as head of the Sudan the US has lost not only its PRINCIPLE but the PRINCIPAL as well, as STALWART of freedom and democracy on this earth.
And Obama has shed the last shreds of his lackluster image as the leading figure of the world and the US in the process.
Hence, the Nobel Committee in Oslo should be held responsible if not condemned for handing this year's Nobel Peace Prize to Obama lacking in character and charisma not to mention principle and principal as well, unlike Daw Aung San Suu Kyi standing tall and holding the fort by sheer courage and cool today.
john eichler Wrote:
24/04/2010
Yep, a new government in name only, governing down the barrel of a gun.
Nothing will ever change for the better
in Burma unless some right thinking
Tatmadaw officers stage a revolt.
Niccolo Machiavelli Wrote:
23/04/2010
A country like Myanmar with many ethnics
fragmentations and rebels covertly encouraged
and support by a neighouring powerful nation,is not suitable for Western type
democracy.
Adam Selene Wrote:
23/04/2010
What strikes me is that neither Kyaw Zwa Moe nor the NLD could predict that this will happen and that the international community will in the end consider even this flawed elections a step forward.
It is beyond me why the NLD chose to sideline itself, when clearly the unity in the opposition to organize a boycott or some sort of upheaval is lacking.
I saw it coming, why didn't they?
At least from within the electoral process the NLD could've had some (albeit limited) influence. Something to build on.
Antagonizing the regime further will only lead to a confrontation that the opposition cannot win. The regime has the military power and the unity within its ranks to do what it wants. As long as ASSK cannot command the military to the table, like her father could with the British, her strategy makes no sense at all.
When will the oppostion wake up and start to be pragmatic. It ain't fun, but it is better to achieve what can be achieved than to do nothing at all.
Dr.Myo.THI-HA Wrote:
23/04/2010
True and correct Ko Kyaw Zwa Moe. Thanks indeed for your article.
My perspective is, we require to go step by step within 10 yrs by the 2 terms of elections.
Different people have different vision but my believe is, we will reach the true democracy without civil wars.
According to the Myanmar history, our country could not be stabilized without Military. 100% already proved by history.
Recent situation in Myanmar is, all people are orientating 360°. This condition is going to civil war soon. Some opposition groups want civil war. Why? for what reason? Do they understand what is real meaning of war? (may be they think the civil war likes as holiday trips)
So due to this reason, I support the military to take 25 percent of the seats in the parliament. After 2 trems of election, we can reduce step by step like Indoneisa.
COMMENTS (25)
E-MAIL
PRINT
