Economic Development amid the Non (or Semi) Democratic political institutions in Southeast Asia - Term Paper Example

?Economic Development Amid the Non (or Semi) Democratic Political s in Southeast Asia Economic development is a vital aspect of any in the world as it reflects the quality of human life in them to a great extend. There are several factors that can influence the economic growth of a country such as availability of financial, infrastructural, human and other resources. Politics can also exert a powerful influence on the economic development of a country and this shades a lot of importance on the study of the relationship between economic growth and political regime. The analysis of such a relationship reveals the influence of regime type on economic growth and how it brings about this influence. This paper gives an overview of Burma’s (Myanmar) political regime before 2011 and a literature review on issues facing the country especially its economic development under this regime. For a long period of time, Burma has been under a political regime that can be described as a militarised nondemocratic system with its head of state being the chairman of the State Peace and development Council (SPDC). The system was so oppressive and over demanding to people. There are many cases of violations of human rights and evidences of an attitude of ignoring the value of human life of the ordinary citizens. This was clearly seen in the aid given to the victims of 2008 Cyclone Nargis. The local people confirmed that the military regime deliberately denied relief supplies required by survivors. The regime also used its power to block the distribution of any international humanitarian aid to the survivors Many victims therefore ended up not receiving relief supplies while those camping at government camps received little food ratio but were forced to sign as food recipients. Many of those who were able to survive well depended on relief from religious organisations. Amidst this time when millions were suffering and required help, the government was concentrating on constitutional referendum. It was so determined to achieve these changes such that instead of postponing the referendum until the situation was normalised, it just pushed dates by a few days for the affected areas. There was also a suppression of the democratic rights of the people of Burma. There are reports claiming that during the 2008 referendum which concurred with the cyclone Nargis, victims of the cyclone in the cyclone-affected areas were forced to vote ‘yes’ for the national referendum. The Union of Solidarity and Development Association (USDA) which is a non-military/civilian wing of the dictatorship threatened to cut relief supplies or inflict violence to anyone who voted against the proposed constitution. The new constitution was thus supported and enacted with 92.48% of the voters endorsing it. This indicates that despite the presence of opposition, total democracy was far from reach in Burma because these democrats were not likely to win the elections and referendums. These activities were oppressed and controlled by the nondemocratic military regime. Apart from inhuman treatment of the people, there was also a violation of the right of freedom of speech by the military regime. Burma citizens had little power to critic and correct the militarised nondemocratic political regime. Zarnagar, a comedian and a dissident was arrested for criticising the ruling generals in public for their sluggish and inadequate response to the cyclone Nargis. He was charged with offences of public order and his computer and many banned films were seized by secret police. When human conditions worsened because of the unmerited fuel price increase in 2007 in Burma, Charles Petrie, the United Nations Burma country chief, issued a statement on UN Day concerning the worsening humanitarian crisis in Burma. Because of this, he was expelled. Generally, the militarised nondemocratic government reinforced its rule by making use of pervasive security apparatus with Directorate of Defense Services Intelligence (DDSI), the military intelligence organization leading the pack. McGowan (49) states that control of civilians is buttressed by arbitrary restrictions on contacts between the citizens and foreigners, surveillance of private citizens and government employees, harassment arrest, detention intimidation and physical abuse of political activists. Religious freedom was limited as Christians and Muslims were regarded with suspicion. Just like secular publications, religious publications remained subject to government control and censorship. Not only has Burma’s militarised nondemocratic regime led to human oppression. It has also oppressed economic growth of the nation. In a country with abundant valuable resources, ranging from gas to gems, one can only expect the citizens of Burma to be enjoying an attractive, decent standard of living. However, the reverse is true of this country. Holmes (190) and Aung-Thwin and Thant (69) explain that in 1962, reforms supporting a socialist regime were made. An economic treatise by the name Burmese Way to Socialise was written with the intention reducing foreign influence on the nation and its economy while increasing the role of the military. Since then, the economic face Burma has changed. The sell of natural gas accounts for a big proportion of revenue to the SPDC. However, Burma is currently one of the least developed nations in the globe and it is one of Asia’s poorest countries despite having precious economic resources. A report released by the Central Intelligence Agency in 2009 indicates that Burma’s economy is one of the least developed globally. At that time, its GDP stood at $42.953 billion and grew at an average annual rate of 2.9%, the lowest economic growth rate in the Greater Mekong Subregion. Burma’s education and health systems are among the poorest in the world. McGowan (49) explains that life in Burma is full of political suppression and economic hardship under the military regime whose only concern is its power. One of the main economic issue facing Burma is that the state demands exceeds the production capacity of the nation and this has led to a slow economic growth in the county. An analysis the 2008 national budget indicates that the SPDC spent over 40% of its national budget exclusively in military expenditure while less than 3% of the budget was allocated to health and education (www.acpp.org/ 1). This is highly unexpected in a country where 90% of its population is living on US$1 per day. Such a situation has made life so difficult for many households in Burma. Because of this situation, the average household in Burma is forced to spend about 70% of its budget on food. Not all households can afford to take upto three meals a day and one out of every three children under the age of five years is suffering from malnutrition. The unfavourable economic situation has also impacted negatively on the national literacy rates. The little resource allocation to education has made education an expensive commodity in Burma and the struggle to attain basic needs has made education a secondary option among the poor. Barely 50% of the children are able to complete their primary education. The militarised government did not invest much in economic development as it is invested in maintaining its power. For military, the maintenance of a stable government was its main concern. Because of this, the latest system in Burma under the militarised government and that was based on the 2008 constitution, was specifically designed to preserve military prosperity and security (Farrelly 2). Long-term horse trading and strategising means that many resources had been invested for senior military officers and this made it hard to surrender the control of the nation to untested civilian leaders. As noted above, the government could allocated as high a 40% of the national budget to military yet drivers of economy like education were allocated as low as 3% of the budget. In fact, this is a total of the budget for education and health sectors. This has led to low literacy levels and therefore lack of skilled workforce to drive the economy towards attaining global standards. It is also true to say that a sickly and underfed workforce is less productive compared to a healthy and well-fed workforce. The government therefore failed to invest adequately in its workforce. The low levels of economic production among the Burma people can be linked to poor health conditions and malnutrition in some of the households. Some of the people cannot afford the high cost of healthcare. These high costs are a result of large numbers of people suffering from chronic ailments such as diabetes, obesity, heart diseases and depression and other mental disorders. With the little healthcare funds, it has been difficult to manage these diseases hence the costs have been shifted to the public. In addition, the healthcare facilities are understaffed and therefore they cannot deliver adequate healthcare. There has also been limited access to anti retroviral (ATVs) for all ATV users and this has led to a worsening state of health and even death of some HIV positive people who were economically active. These drugs are out of reach for those who want to acquire them from private clinic because of the high prices. This indicates that the Burma has lost part of its productive workforce because of irrational allocation of resources across the various sectors. In 2010, only 30,000 out of the 76,000 people who needed ARVs received the medicine. Thanks to the new government. In June 2011, the new civilian government announced a 5-year plan for providing ARV treatment for the 76,ooo people who already need ARV. This means there will be revival of strength among this group. Some of the policies formulated by the Burmese government have affected the competitiveness of the Burmese economy. For example, the competitiveness of the Burmese agriculture in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) region and the global market has been retarded by policy related issues. These issues have been identified as very critical and they require genuine adjustments or reforms in order to strengthen the competitiveness of agriculture. Some of these policies include subsidy policy, production policy, land policy, procurement and price policy, as well as the uncertainty and unpredictability of policies (Soe 60). The land policy in Burma is rigid and the land use system is mostly irrational and inefficient. One of the characteristic of the land policy in Burma is that all land is state property and so it is owned by the state. The land policy and the land use system are unattractive to private development and have therefore have served as disincentives instead of incentives to the people to undertake land improvement activities. These have led to negative land developments like land degradation, fragmentation and deteriorating land productivity. Some of the actions of the actions of the military regime have affected its economic relations with other parts of the world and even access to global markets. Some military regimes have been pawns of the superpower because they engage in skirmishes in various parts of the region. A good example is the Burmese generals. These generals were long supported for a long time by China, its allies, as a way of keeping the natural resources of Burma from the western and global market. These also resulted from the selfish ambitions of the local military officers who are impatient with any form of democratic self-government. Burma, Nigeria and North Korea have been identified as the most brutal and restrictive military regimes that ever existed/exist (www.ibiblio.org 1). The way in which the military conducted the affairs of the nation caused western countries and organisations to take measures against the nation of Burma. They enforced more than 20 years of sanctions against Burma with the objective of toppling its military government. Despite the good intention, such sanctions did not in any way stimulate economic development. Under the rigid military junta system, the Burma’s economy stagnated and the people lived hard lives. Military or dictatorship government may welcome foreign corporations and foreign investment. However, these corporations will withdraw sooner from such countries because of economic factors, human rights factors, political factors, technological factors and skilled labour factors. The militarised nondemocratic regime was characterised by abuse of power and corruption. This tempered with the economic development in the nation by discouraging foreign investors (www.ibiblio.org 1). If a company knows that military leaders are lining their personal pockets with money that should go to the national basket, that human rights are suppressed and that corruption and abuse of power form part of the existing standard operating procedure, it may reconsider its investment plans. The business leaders of many multinational corporations normally pause to consider the long-term consequences of investing in a country with a poor political governance. The question to consider is whether benefits of doing business in a country operating under such a system outweighs the human, economic and social costs. The military-political regime in Burma therefore presented serious strategic and ethical problems for business leaders. The militarized regime entered into attractive deals with multinational companies in an effort to generate extra economic earnings. Some of the attractions that this regime created through its power include low wages, low taxes, weak environmental regulations and freedom from criticism in the press. However, such dealings are not efficient in achieving a commendable economic growth for the country because it cannot upgrade the economic status of the people. Economic strategies that cannot address the issue of poverty are normally limited in their power to bring about economic growth. Even where the government gained reasonable amounts of revenue from such deals, much of these was used to maintain its oppressive power instead of undertaking profitable economic developments in the country. Some of the undertakings of the government were unrealistic given the poor economic state in the country and the people had not power to protest against such. At one time, 2006, the government decided to increase the salaries of earned by state employees, some even by 10 times. Everyone knew the government could not manage this and the result was an abnormal rise in prices of goods. This made life harder for the poor. The military government also seemed to rob the nation or at least, permitted the robbing. This was evidenced by the scarcity of some goods like petrol. Civilians were allowed to take only 9 liters/two gallons per day at the government prices and sometimes, queuing could take long. However, there was plenty of petrol at the black market and it was sold at higher prices. Government battle with insurgent groups There was a persistent negative attitude and hatred between the government and the natives and this made it very difficult for the government to unify the nation. This mainly resulted in the contentious relationship between the government and Burma’s natives, many of whom were fighting for greater control for regions after the nation’s country’s independence in 1948. This led to the rising of many ethnic insurgent groups. Despite this, the military intensified their campaigns and this brought the country under the control of a centralized government. Beginning 1989, the government was forced to enter into a number of ceasefire agreements between itself and insurgent groups. However, a few armed insurgent groups remained in active opposition. For 50 years, the military had to battle with insurgent groups formed by ethnic minority groups who either wanted independence from the ethnic Burman majority who were dominant or greater autonomy. The presence of such friction between the government and some of the citizens led to a state of constant instability that directly and indirectly interfered with economic development in such regions. In 1995, the government broke down its ceasefire with Karenni National Progressive Party (KNPP), a separatist party. This worsened political instability and consequently, the state of economic environment. In 1996, the army began an offensive against the KNPP and this went on through year's end. The military had to embark on a campaign to deny the guerrillas access to local support. Part of this campaign involved forceful relocation of Karenni civilians numbering tens of thousands and hundreds of villages by the military forces. In southern and central Shan state, the military continued to fight the Shan State Army (SSA). This was one of the bigger rebel groups fighting against the SPDC regime. In order to suppress the SSA, the military started a campaign of relocation against the civilian villagers in the region. Eventually, many thousands of civilians were forcibly removed from their villages. A democratic rule would not have given a chance for such actions. It goes without doubt that such forceful evictions and relocations disrupts retards economic development because people are forced to leave their farming and other commercial businesses. In their new settlements, the government had to help them as they re-established. This is money that could have been used for economic development. It therefore results to double loss to the nation. It is thus justifiable to state that nondemocratic leadership creates more room for abuse of power compared to having a democratic government. Such leadership negatively affect economic development. Other protests against the nondemocratic regime Most of the Burma citizens, the civilians for that matter, do not support such kind of a regime and this has resulted social unrest in the country. There is a history of revolutions in the in the country because of strong opposition to the military regime by the civilians including religious leaders. The noble aims of these uprisings are the protection of human rights and attainment of democracy in the nation. One of them is the 8888 Uprising of 1988. The most recent revolution is the Saffron Revolution, a revolution formed by monks. In 2007, the military regime announced an increase in fuel prices. This led to a fivefold increase in fuel prices and the result was an increase in transport costs and prices of food. This worsened the state of poverty among the people. Sympathetic to the suffering of the people, monks went to the streets in August 2007, singing “Metta Sutta,” loving-kindness. One of the monks said, “We can’t sit back and watch the people who sponsor us sink into poverty. Their poverty is our poverty as well” (www.acpp.org 2). There were global campaigns fighting against the oppressive political situation in Burma. An example of this is The Burma Campaign UK. This movement is part of a global movement that is actively campaigning for democracy and human rights in Burma. The aim of its campaign is to increase economic pressure on the military regime by discouraging tourism and investment. They also lobbied the European Union and the UK government to increase political pressure on the oppressive regime. They had also produced a dirty list for other groups or people who are concerned and who want to be part of the pressure group against the inhuman Burmese military junta. Despite such local and global revolutions, was very difficult to achieve the desired democracy and the protection of human rights in Burma. Farelly (2) states many democrats in Burma found themselves confronted with an unfavorable political landscape where old certainties had been replaced by an expanding array of new and contentious challenges. Their excessive control and dominance over elections also made it difficult for democratic individuals to attain any influential and powerful position in the government. This led to the sustenance of an unfavorable political environment that did not attract sufficient local and foreign economic investments. These could function as powerful drivers of economic revolution in the country. This situation is expected to change after the 2010 general election that saw the establishment of a civilian government. The elections were conducted towards the end of 2010 and the civilians received landslide victory amidst day-to-day frustrations during the campaigns. The new government that is led by president U Thein Sein is barely a year old. There are high expectations that the people will be relieved of pressure both from home and abroad and because of that, they can embrace transformation and development. Yuen (230) reveals that in the 1990s, Burma experienced a brief period of economic growth as a result of liberalization of policies. This ended when this was revised and changed to a centrally planned economy. This gives one a good reason to expect that under the new civilian government, a re-revision of this will lead to the witnessing of another period of economic growth and a sustained one. Recently, president Sein announced new national market economic policies that are aimed at bridging the development and economic gap between the nation’s rich and poor that was created under the militarized nondemocratic government. Conclusion Burma is an example of how the economy of a nation can suffer because of poor leadership styles. For about half a century, the country has been under a militarized nondemocratic government which has grown to become more and more oppressive over time. the country has witnessed one of the worst violations of human rights because of a bad political regime. In efforts to maintain thumb of rule in the country the regime formulated poor and unattractive economic policies which have discouraged both local and foreign investment in the country. The land policies have acted as disincentives for the people to undertake land development and this has retarded the competitiveness of the nation’s agriculture. There are many and powerful global examples of highly developed nations that are ruled by democratic civilian governments. The US, UK, Canada, South Africa are just but a mention. This means that there are hopes that the end of the nondemocratic militarized regime will bring Burma back on the road to development. Economic development is an important prerequisite for greater stability, prosperity, equality, stability, and better livelihoods. With the recent advent of the new Burma’s civilian, democratic government, it is of due significance that the international community should help direct the new Burma’s government into achieving economic developments that are sustainable. This will be very instrumental in ensuring that the repressed people of Burma receive the right food, education, health, security and happiness they deserve. Works Cited Aung-Thwin Maureen and Thant, Myint-U. "The Burmese Ways to Socialism". Third World Quarterly: Rethinking Socialism. (1) pp 67–75. 1992. Central Intelligence Agency (2009). "Burma". The World Factbook. Central Intelligence Agency. Faralley Nicholas. (2010). “Beyond Burma’s stalemates.” Online: http://inside.org.au/beyond-burmas-stalemates/. Retrieved on 1st December, 2011. Holmes Robert. "Burmese Domestic Policy: The Politics of Burmanization". Asian Survey (3): 188–197. 1967. McGowan William. "Burmese Hell". World Policy Journal. (2): 47–56. 1993. Soe Tin. “Myanmar in Economic Transition: Constraints and Related Issues Affecting the Agriculture Sector.” Asian Journal of Agriculture and Development. (2) 57-68. 2004. www.acpp.org/. (2008). Backgrounder on Struggle for Democracy in Burma/Myanmar. Online” http://www.acpp.org/uappeals/bground/saffronburma.htm. Retrieved on 1st December, 2011. www.ibiblio.org (1999). “Militarized Nondemocratic System vs. Burma.” Online: http://www.ibiblio.org/obl/reg.burma/archives/199910/msg00808.html. Retrieved on 1st December, 2011. Yuen Lorelle. “Prospects for economic development in Burma using the neoclassical model.” Indian Journal of Economics & Business. (2) pp 221-248. 2011. Read More