ARTICLE
BURMA TESTS ASIAN VALUES
|
AUGUST, 1997 - VOLUME 5 NO.4/5
|
If Asian values are about encouraging a harmonious relationship between the state and society, then Asean leaders have their work cut out in Burma.
Now that Burma is a member of Asean, it would not be illogical to assume that Asean will now take some responsibility for the well-being of that unfortunate country — which is now an economic, political and social "basket case" in the regional forum.
It is not presumptuous to presume that Aung San Suu Kyi is, like Lt Gen Khin Nyunt and Slorc generals, now regarded as part of the Asean community. Perhaps, Asean leaders will cease treating her as a political persona non-grata. It is also hoped that Asean leaders, who are presumably sincere about Confucian and "Asian" values, will be true to their convictions and help restore state-society harmony in Burma.
A cardinal component of Confucianism is "harmony" — that is, harmony between the head of the family and its members, and by extension, harmony within a state between rulers and the ruled (or state and civil society).
Burma is precisely a place where this "harmony" is lacking. Strife between the state and civil society has been the norm since 1962. This stems from those entrusted with the country’s defence betraying that trust. They usurped — in 1962 and in 1988 — by force of arms the power to govern, and have monopolised all forms of power at gunpoint. With their guns, they have "anointed" themselves the guardian-rulers of the country in perpetuity.
What the people of Burma want, as articulated by their chosen champion, Suu Kyi, is the restoration of harmony between that part of the population which exercises power and the rest of society, over whom power is exercised.
Give and take
In Burma, "democracy" is but a metaphor of the desire of the people for the restoration of harmony — a functional relation based on give-and take between those who wield power and those who do not, not only in politics but in every sphere of life. It is not that the people and their champion, Suu Kyi, want to transplant, wholesale, "Western" values into Burma.
The message she brings is one that is based on Buddhist compassion, and on harmony between the state and society that results from a compassionate relationship between people in general, and between rulers and the ruled in particular. Is there anything more Asian than this?
It is therefore incomprehensible why powerful Asean leaders — who ascribe to things Asian with great pride — are so set against a frail woman who would probably have, under different circumstances, looked upon them as esteemed elder statesmen and mentors. One wonders if male chauvinism is not a factor?
These powerful men could have gone down in history as "great Asians". Regretfully, it now appears — because of their indefensible defence of military rule of the most brutal kind — that they will be remembered, perhaps unfairly, as petulant, unreasonable and uncompassionate mini-tyrants.
At any rate, there are, at an analytical level, many problems with the assault on democracy (and human rights) on the premise that democracy is "Western". It is certain that good men serving Asean governments, many with doctorates from good universities (incidentally, in the West), also have problems with the ideological formulations of their political "masters" (those who butter their bread). It is pity that Asians who are otherwise enlightened have chosen to, as a Burmese saying goes, "hold water in their mouths".
What are the "Western" values, one may ask, that Asean leaders are so staunchly against?
In its bare bones, what we call "Western" culture is a culture and a set of values that put man — man as an autonomous, free entity — at the heart of politics and economy. It is a culture based on the questioning of the "givens", that is, given knowledge, wisdom, truths, even faith, and beliefs and notions that are encrusted with mystifications.
"Western" culture and values encompass a way of life where the "superior" status of any person — and the wielding of power — is regarded as functional and instrumental, and thus conditional superior status and possession of power are not viewed as mandated by an abstract power that transcends man, such as the "nation", "community", winged inhabitants from up above, and so on. It is from this way of seeing and comprehending power and human relations, that there arose the notion of democratic accountability, human rights, and other liberties.
In the above connection, those who are familiar with the "teachings" of the Buddha will find that "Western" culture and values are not all that "Western", after all. At the heart of Buddhism is the appreciation of a clear mind (a mental state) that always questions "reality" and "truths", even the words of the great teacher himself.
Human construct
The fact that Buddhism, which is as Asian as any philosophy can be, is at one, so to speak, with "Western" culture and values, raises a quite awkward question for those who insist that democracy (and human rights) is "Western" and alien to Asian ways.
Confucius notwithstanding — whose words, like those of Karl Marx, Mao Zedong, Max Weber and other philosophers, have been utilised to justify many things, the good along with the bad — "Asian values" does not refer to an absolute, monolithic body of values. As established thus far by the social sciences, "culture" (and its system of values) is a human construct. Often, culture is constructed by elites from elements carefully selected from a host of values and imposed on society in many ways and by various means — for example, through the school system controlled or directed by governments.
Hence, analytically speaking, a given culture of any given society is "artificial" or man-made, and definitely political. It is constructed, established, maintained, and perpetuated to shore up a certain social-political-economic status quo. Culture is a means by which those who benefit most from a given socio-political arrangement maintain the status quo and/or neutralise and marginalise the values and world-views of those who wish to change a given social order or desire a different arrangement.
Therefore, to argue that "Asian" culture is a natural phenomenon, a DNA-like phenomenon that is biologically inherent in all and every Asian person since birth, is a quite mind-blowing. To believe that this is the case would require one to make a leap back in time to perhaps, Germany of the post-Weimer years.
The explicit accusation made by Slorc generals, and implicitly, by Asean leaders that the aspiration for democracy (and human rights) in Burma is anti-Asian and inspired by the West — by Soros, in particular — is patently misplaced. It is certainly not Western inspired, nor is it anti-Asian in orientation, because it is rooted in Buddhism. More importantly, it is the result of bitter, painful experience of life of over 30 years under military atrocities and mis-rule.
Why is this quite natural, Asian impulse of a people who have suffered so much for so long, so difficult for powerful leaders like Mahathir Mohamad and other Asean leaders to understand? Surely, these leaders are every bit as Asian as the people of Burma are?
Of course, every Burmese prays every night, and has done so for many years to be blessed with an "enlightened" authoritarian ruler like Lee Kuan Yew (now senior minister) whom they once greatly admired. Unfortunately, their prayers have not been answered.
Harmony and order
Now that Burma is a member of Asean, one might hope that Asean leaders will he able to help put in place a system that satisfies their notion of "Asian" harmony and order, but which precludes rule at gunpoint and "law and order" maintained by military atrocities.
Surely, the desire to do away with military rule does not contravene any "Asian" values, or contradict any Asean principles. Seeing that most Asean countries are with the exception of Indonesia — ruled by civilians, it is hoped that the principle of civilian supremacy over the military will be respected, or that this basic principle accepted by almost all Asean governments and leaders will not be dishonoured. Now that Asean leaders have shown the West that they are masters of their turf by admitting Burma — or rather, the illegitimate Slorc junta — into the club, it is hoped that they will now proceed to "constructively engage" with leaders who represent the people of Burma, and the person chosen by them as their champion — Suu Kyi.
If Asean leaders can "constructively engage" with those who hold power at gunpoint and continue to commit atrocities, there is no reason for them not to deal with leaders who have won an election or are popularly acclaimed as legitimate leaders.
After all, the popular struggle in Burma is not directed against Asian values, nor is it aimed at discrediting a variety of political arrangements set up by Asean leaders in their respective countries. It is a struggle against rule at gunpoint by a handful of generals who represent, at best, only a small segment of the military.
The struggle of Burma is, in other words, a struggle by the people for civilian rule based on the consent of the ruled. This is the kind of governance which no Asean leaders have directly and openly repudiated, notwithstanding their defence of "Asian" values. Further, it is the kind of governance — and principle — which most of them more or less adhere to in the countries they respectively govern.
This article was written by Chao-Tzang Yawnghwe and appeared in the Nation.
|