Development and Dilemma of Burma - Assignment Example

Burma’s ‘political liberalization’ is an opportunity to break the military’s control of power thereby participating a process of gradual reform?  Burma, unlike its undeveloped Asian counterparts, is much slower in its path to reform. When the hindrances on the path to democracy in Burma are analyzed in the light of various theories, it becomes evident that two theories hold true in the case of Burma; the theory of stateness and the theory of regime unification. First of all, the authoritarian government tried to impose its authority without the consent of the various ethnic groups in the nation. Secondly, the ruling military was highly unified without any divide between hard-liners and soft-liners; a condition that is necessary for the introduction of democracy. The political history of Burma and the theory of Stateness It seems that the problems in Burma can be fully and successfully explained in the light of the theory of stateness. According to the theory of stateness (as cited in Vasilache, 2007), it is necessary for democracy to overcome the problems of stateness in order to succeed and survive. When this theory is further explained, it becomes clear that democracy will not survive without state. ‘Stateness’ means a consensus regarding who are the citizens and what is the territory (Dukalskis, 2009). Now, a look back into Burmese history proves that the country was not destined to become a peaceful democracy as it did follow the wrong path from the very beginning. Until the British colonization of Burma, the nation was divided into various independent states. On colonization, the British further deepened the existing ethnic divide by favoring certain ethnic groups and ignoring the rest. During the Second World War, Aung San successfully managed to negotiate an agreement with the British, and thus, Burma gained total independence. Aung San tried to bring consensus among the minorities in Burma and drafted a new constitution (Harvey, 2000). However, U Nu could not manage the ethnic differences and his government was threatened by communist and ethic groups. The result was intense civil war as many minorities were looking for independence. Thus, once again, one gets the insight that democracy will not survive without a state as rightly observed in stateness theory. As a result, the nation again fell into further anarchy as General Ne Win took over the government. This time, the approach was different. Instead of solving the disparities, his government forcefully brought the whole country including the minority states under his rule. Soon, Ne Win introduced authoritarian military rule. However, the result was relentless armed struggle everywhere in the nation as opposing groups were crushed with iron hands. Again, one has to go back to the stateness theory and see what happens when oppositions are suppressed mercilessly. Scholars like Lambach (2009, p. 165) opine that it is possible for aspiring democracies to enforce territorial agreement on separatist views. However, the problem is that this enforcement only creates barriers to democratization because the people who are democratized without permission will defy democratic consolidation. That means, the more diverse the nation is, the more difficult the democratization will be. Admittedly, the very same thing took place in Burma too. There was widespread violence and killing, and the bloodshed could not suppress people. As Reid (2005, p. 112) points out, the democracy advocates who had to flee reached areas under ethnic control and reached alliances with ethnic movements. Thus, democratic interests and ethnic interests merged in an uncanny amalgam which cannot be untwined. Thus, Burmese desire for freedom gained momentum, but not enough to shake the might of military power. Burma’s slow advance towards reform- the regime unification theory According to the regime unification theory (as cited in Migdal, 2004, p. 113), the split among ruling elites takes place as a result of ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ outlooks. The hardliners view authoritarian rule as desirable and achievable while the soft-liners believe that though a repression is necessary in the initial stage, it is necessary to gain electoral legitimation as time passes. One can see in Burma, the military government foresaw the imminent fall by the movement of 8 August 1988. Immediately, it introduced the SLORC as a transitional government and promised to conduct a democratic election soon. Election was held and the National League for Democracy (NLD) led by Suu Kyi won the election. However, the SLORC did not hand over authority. Instead, it went on in power and declared that a new constitution was being drafted. Thus, the theory points out that a unified opposition with an internationally recognized and powerful leader could not bring an authoritarian government down (Fink, 2001, p. 69). There is one more evidence in order to substantiate the regime unification theory. Former Prime Minister Khin Nyunt was a figure in the soft-liner class. He had secret talks with Suu Kyi in the year 2001. However, he was charged with corruption in the year 2004 and was kept under house arrest. All his supporters within the military were fired. That means the hardliners are in strict control of the situation and the soft-liners do not have a voice. Admittedly, there is no possibility of a hard-liner/soft-liner divide in the military in the near future, and hence, democratization in this way remains a distant possibility. Both stateness and regime unification responsible for Burmese dilemma In total, it becomes evident that both the stateness theory and regime unification theory hold true in the case of Burma. The stateness theory argues that democracy requires stateness, and it is the stateness problems which promotes authoritarianism in Burma. Similarly, there is the regime unification theory which claims that democratization fails in Burma because of the absence of a divide between hard-liners and soft-liners in the ruling class. What is all the more alarming is that as time passes, there is a gradual decline in the importance of stateness conflicts either through repression or through ceasefire agreements. According to the statistics provided by Dukalskis (2009), while there was an average of 5.2 armed conflicts per year between 1948 and 1961, the average declined to 2.5 armed conflicts per year between 1988 and 2007. In addition, SPDC has increased its power and grip over the nation by making various insurgent groups surrender. An example is the KNU. Another important point is that the SPDC has become more united over the years. There is little evidence of any split within the organization. The sacking of Khin Nyunt and his allies as far back as in 1997 reveals that the soft-liners are unlikely to gain the upper hand in the near future. The role of Suu Kyi Suu Kyi is the only figure that opposes the authoritarian military rule in Burma. At least, that is the picture the outside world gets through media, and the thanks almost exclusively go to her connections with the U.S. In fact, the U.S has very little economic or political interest in Burma, and if America shows a hostile attitude towards the military junta in Burma, the reason is the influence of Suu Kyi. Admittedly, her image in Burma was the result of the position of her father as the founder of independent Burma. However, in foreign nations which possess little interest towards Burma, the image is the result of her vulnerability as a fragile woman in front of an oppressive Burmese military (David, 2010, p. 38). In other words, the vulnerable female who personifies democracy managed to secure the attention of the powerful West, and thus, the U.S shows more interest in the matter than it would normally show. Admittedly, she is a strong and fearless woman, and this bravery is evident from her unchangeable ideologies even on the face of long years of house arrest and 1990 victory. In fact the whole world noticed her solo fight for democracy against the mighty military, and she got the Nobel Prize for the same. Though the military tried its best to tarnish her image by presenting her as a pawn in the hands of the West and published a large number of articles against her, she gained more and more support both internally and globally as the stories of the torture she suffered at the hands of the military spread like wildfire. The result was the ire of the West including the U.S which came out in the form of sanctions till the Burmese authorities manage to introduce democracy in the nation. The sanctions covered stoppage of military sales and assistance, economic assistance and anti-narcotics program Wintle, 2007, p. 61). However, one can see that the demand of the West does not include regime change at present. What they want is the introduction of ‘free and fair’ governance along with the release of all political prisoners (ibid). There, one can see a difference in the ideologies of NLD and Suu Kyi. While NLD claimed that the military should be controlled by civilians, Suu Kyi is not totally against the tatmadaw. In the year 2009, she even expressed willingness to discuss the sanctions issue. Anyway, her attitude towards Burmese government will be reflected in the Western attitude towards the nation. As per the The New York Times (12 May 2012) report, when she and her NLD refused to take part in the 2010 elections, there were widespread criticisms about her ability to bring democracy to Burma. However, her party reached the parliament in the 2012 by-election. Now, it seems that the 2015 election will introduce more democracy to the military-crushed nation (ibid). Conclusion In total, it becomes evident that the issues in Burma, which hinder democracy, can be successfully explained in the light of the theories of stateness and regime unification. However, the nation is continuing its slow progress towards democracy under the leadership of Aung San Suu Kyi. Her determination and dedication gained the attention of the West and pressurized the all-powerful military government to control its oppressive activities. Now Aung San Suu Kyi and her NLD reached the Parliament. Now, it will take time and effort for them to develop ‘stateness’ in Burma and eliminate the strong military hold on various spheres of Burmese life. References Dukalskis, A., 2009. Stateness problems or regime unification: explaining obstacles to democratization in Burma/Myanmar, Democratization, 16(5). David, IS., 2010. Aung San Suu Kyi and U. S. policy toward Burma/Myanmar, Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs, 29(3), pp. 35-59. Fink, C., 2001. Living Silence: Burma under Military Rule. New York: Zed Books. Harvey, GE., 2000. History of Burma. New Delhi: Asian Educational Services. Kyi, DSS., 02 May 2012. The New York Times, [Online] Available at: http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/a/daw_aung_san_suu_kyi/index.html [Accessed 12 May 2012]. Lambach, D., 2009. Democratization, stateness and the western response to countries in crisis after 1989. In: D. kostovicova & V. Bojicic-Dzelilovic (Eds). Persistent State Weakness in the Global Age. England: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. Migdal, JS., 2004. Boundaries and Belonging: States and Societies in the Struggle to Shape Identities and Local Practices. USA: Cambridge University Press. Reid, R & Grosberg, M., 2005. Myanmar (Burma).Australia: Lonely Planet. Vasilache, A., 2007. Precarious stateness and the fleeting boundaries of sovereignty: Reflections on Giorgio Agamben, Transition theory and the Indonesian case, GARNET Working Paper, pp. 1-28, [Online] Available at: http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/garnet/workingpapers/1207.pdf [Accessed 12 may 2012]. Wintle, J., 2007. Perfect Hostage. USA: Hutchinson. Read More