| FEBRUARY, 1999 - VOLUME 7 NO.2 |
"The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them." - ALBERT EINSTEIN While attending an international conference last year, I met a few people who said to me: "You guys don't have the ability to stand up to the military regime. You guys are always on the defensive." To that, I replied, "No, I don't think so." Because, though the SPDC is still in power, I know of a number of events taking place in Burma right now which are believed to make the regime particularly vulnerable and the democracy movement stronger. But immediately after I replied "no", I warned myself not to be comfortable with this "no" and the temporary ups and downs of the political seesawing taking place in the form of the many so called significant events inside Burma. I decided that I should explore the real reasons why those people at the conference made that kind of judgement about our movement. I have asked myself two questions repeatedly since then: Have they really given up hope that we are going to prevail over the dictatorship in Burma? Are our preparations for the democratization of Burma far sighted enough? The first question is beyond my knowledge, but I have much to say about the latter. What have we done in the past ten years? Has all that we achieved only been evanescent political triumphs? No, I don't believe so. We have attained at least two important things: one, the electoral victory of the 1990 general elections, and, two, the growing mutual understanding between the Burman majority and various minority groups. Both of these are quite important. The election results, though not yet honored, provide an important source of legitimacy for the NLD to remain a legal political party, in spite of the severest of restrictions on it. Growing mutual understanding among different groups, despite some questionable issues, is paving the way for future democracy in Burma. But it is not enough, really not enough. After ten years of involvement in the pro democracy movement, I feel we still need to prepare ourselves in two essential ways in order to achieve enduring democracy in Burma. One is to cultivate a healthy attitude in our people, and the other is to sow the seeds of civil society the formation of autonomous civic institutions. Without having these two indispensable preparations, we won't achieve genuine democracy unless the junta voluntarily releases its tight grip on the country by itself. Even if we attained democracy without such preparations, it wouldn't last long. In this article, I will limit my comments to the topic of healthy attitudes and why we need to develop them in our movement. I will address the important issue of building civil society later on. The following excerpt from a recent letter of mine to a friend expresses the feelings I encounter when reflecting on this issue. In my letter I said: "I absolutely agree with you on the point that we haven't come to be mature enough, though we contentedly claim we are doing good for others. Sometimes I brink one of the main reasons we haven't beaten the regime is that they seem to be a part of our national character: " It is true. When we look at the mirror of military dictatorship carefully, we can find out some parts of our face. We can see some character traits, such as narrow mindedness, factionalism, jealousy; bias, intolerance, aggressiveness, arrogance, conceit, prejudice, hypocrisy, irresponsibility, blame, the unwillingness to compromise and personal attacks. The list goes on and on, reflecting not only the regime's characteristics, but also ours. If the SPDC were a foreign body not a part of us, it would be easier for us to get rid of it. But when they appear to be an extreme manifestation or embodiment of the ugly aspect of our country's character, our movement needs to pay more serious attention to education in a broad sense. This is why I wholeheartedly support Daw Aung San Suu Kyi's idea of spiritual revolution. You can probably riposte that such character traits are an unavoidable aspect of human nature. We can find similar experiences in other revolutionary movements. But I don't think our problem is a pure reflection of human nature. Moreover, I'm not used to attributing something seemingly unresolvable to human nature. This is too easy. Actually it is partly the product of history. For over eight years, from 1989 to 1997, one hid in Burma as part of the underground resistance. This experience afforded me a lot of time to reflect on the roots of the current political situation. During that time, I felt that my country lacked a healthy national character appropriate for the modem era. Since 1991, the questions I have asked myself and others are, what is the Burmese national identity, and does it exist now? Throughout successive Burmese dynasties, we have been subjected to a value system rooted in feudalistic bonds and loyalties, but these are not applicable to the changing structure of Burmese society After the British colonized our country, they practiced the divide and rule policy in order to prevent the emergence of the collective aspirations of the people. Nevertheless, national hero Gen. Aung San realized this and attempted to consolidate all people on the basis of a unifying spirit for independence from colonial government. Unlike previous statesmen or leaders of Burma, Geri. Aung San developed the solidarity of the people by means of consensus and commitment, not by the use of force and fraud. He fostered a spirit of unification that brought forth the shared dedication of the whole country to this goal. It was the basis of a working relationship that might have been the embryonic inception of genuine national unity based on shared values. Unfortunately Gen. Aung San was assassinated and civil war broke out. The developing unity of the whole people died with him, never having a chance to assist in the development of a peaceful nation building press. Unity has been replaced by mistrust, which breeds the allpervasive moods of hatred and fear. The harsh state building efforts of successive regimes have caused the situation to deteriorate and are, currently, running in a higher gear than ever before. Especially since 1962, the regimes have practiced two main kinds of psychological measures: one, the creation of mistrust among the people by exercising "divide and rule" tactics and, two, impelling the people to rely only on the ruling military through the prohibition of all independent civil institutions and tight control of the media. Even now, on the threshold of the 21st century, Burma is still under the most oppressive junta in the world, which is the worst in every category. Clearly, the attitude and behavior of Burmese people have much to do with the environment they have grown up with. The perceptions and mind sets of people are greatly influenced by the historical experience of their society. And in a society which has been closed for decades and remains extremely repressive, it is difficult to escape from these influences. Are we activists immune to the effects of such history? No, we are no exception. See how you feel, when you read the following phrases. "Do you think that you can do UG better than me?" "We can't let them take credit for that." "Without us, they can't do anything" I have heard many words like the above mentioned by others. I myself have also said similarly stupid things on some occasions. This is shameful! But, as veteran sinologist Orville Schell wrote on the public feuds of Chinese pro-democracy dissidents, "It is not surprising if you're reared on the authoritarian models of political behavior that stress manipulating factions, purging your adversaries and intolerance, that people who theoretically believe in democracy have a hard time behaving." It is also true for us. We have been molded by a closed society for many years. The idea that democracy is a way of life that you must practice in your daily life, in your organization and in your community is pretty far removed from our practice, attitude and behavior. We have also thought of democracy as something that we have to try to acquire and then bring to the people as an act of deliverance. In other words, we have put ourselves in the position of sacrificial saviors of the people, though most avoid making this claim openly. This has created a misconception about the meaning and purpose of sacrifice. When we are asked what the meaning of sacrifice is, we say something such as that it is doing good for others or contributing to the welfare of the many. We also tend to assume that there is an inherent linkage between nobility and working for the welfare of others. And then we think we have a legitimate right to claim that we are glorious and noble because we are working for the welfare of many Do you think this assumption is sensible and true? As for me I have become more and more skeptical about it. It is so shallow! Allow me to clarify this a little more. I have lived my life with a strong belief in working for the welfare of others, which I believed would naturally enable me to become noble. But I've never attained the satisfaction of nobility I have smoldered with anger, pride, prejudice, desire, frustration, melancholy jealousy and a host of other negative emotions. In short, my mind is always out of balance. By being out of balance, I have sometimes unintentionally or even intentionally hurt other people in many ways. This has occurred despite the fact that I had rationalized that working for the welfare of many would lead me to a noble life and make other people happy. Actually it is because of my shallow understanding of the concept of sacrifice that I didn't realize there are two kinds of sacrifice: that which is not free from "I" and that which is free from "I". Though I claimed to have made sacrifices, I have followed an ego?centered path favoring or supporting "I". In this conception, the "I" encompasses not oily a single person, but also a family, or a group, or a race, or a country, or even an ideology All things both animate and inanimate, which one regards as one's own, are taken to mean "I". The "I" here doesn't denote quantity or amounts, but denotes "quality" or substance. In truth, the ego?centered attitude or all attachments to "I" restricts, in one way or another, the interests of others. It doesn't allow for compassion to arise. When compassion has no chance to flourish, jealousy, ill?will and selfishness come in by themselves. In this way, I have not only inflicted hurt on others but also on myself. I have lost a great chance to develop the quality of my mind by not actualizing my human potentials. Therefore, as long as one is not able to try to discourage one's ego?centered attitudes that cause misery within and around us, a person and his or her society won't become healthy Sacrificing oneself is, in fact, the best way to attempt to discard one's own ego?centered life. The two are inseparable. Therefore, doing good for other; or contributing to the welfare of many is the same as killing your ego?centered attitudes. Conversely, trying to detach yourself from your ego clinging attitudes is another way of engaging in your society with true compassion. Therefore, the true meaning of sacrifice is a combination of discarding and contributing, detachment and engagement. Though it appears to be a contradiction, it is a paradoxical truth. The other insight that we can deduce from the above understanding is that sacrifice is not an end in itself. It is the best means to nurture one's quality of mind by reducing one's ego centered attitudes. The most valuable thing that one can get back from working for the well being of many is the chance to attempt to be mature and to improve the quality of one's mind. Otherwise this effort is just ego feeding vanity or an outlet of one's aggressiveness. We should assume that working for the benefit of others can give us a chance to develop or exercise open mindedness, compassion, moderation, tolerance, self responsibility, fairness, forgiveness, sympathetic joy, prudence, self restraint, sense of understanding, and due respect for others. Thus, sacrificing oneself becomes the best practice for people to become mature beings. But in reality we are circumscribed by our immaturity 'this immaturity, is reinforced by the repressive environment we face, where mistrust, fear and hatred have prevailed for many decades. As I wrote to my friend, we haven't reached maturity, though we contentedly claim we are doing good for others. We are so hemmed in by the vicious cycle of tremendous repression and immaturity that political or social revolution seem almost impossible. So there has to be "a movement very much of the spirit," as Daw Aung San Suu Kyi once described the revolution she called for in Burma. Therefore let's focus on making our attitudes more healthy to prepare for the spiritual revolution of Burma. This article was contributed by Min Zin.