Explore the concept of Authoritarian leadership in Myanmar and discuss how it has shaped Myanmar in its socio-political aspects.
With the population of 55-60 million and around 135 distinct ethnic groups, Myanmar (previously known as Burma) has been no stranger to world’s political studies and scholarly research. Through repetitive unsuccessful attempts to topple the regime, the dictatorship in Myanmar managed to remain as one of the world’s longest autocratic establishments since 1962. Despite the recent socio-political reforms, Myanmar’s notorious military leaders are still the key players of rigid power control and the majority of the population still lament in poverty and lack of basic necessities. Have the extensional changes to political scope been put forward, Myanmar still struggles with its notorious human rights records and has a long way to go before it becomes a full-fledged democracy. Which factors contributed to such an unbroken series of long-established military dictatorships in today’s world where even the most oppressive regimes are subject to the verge of an end? In this paper, I will examine the authoritarian nature of Myanmar’s leadership and how it has shaped and developed the country’s political, economic and foreign strategies over the decades.
Brief Nature of Authoritarianism
Before introducing the in-depth analysis of authoritarian regime in Myanmar, I will first explore the comparative context of authoritarianism in its socio-political aspects. The term ‘authoritarian government’ is often used to describe any form of ‘non-democratic government’, including but not limited to the notion of dictatorship, monarchies, traditional and modern forms of non-democratic regimes. According to Linz, authoritaria...
... middle of paper ...
...ocracy.
Conclusion
It is undeniable that Myanmar’s military has perfected a style of government which endured for half a century through a mediation of changes from the traditional authoritarian government to a unique modernization. Despite the political fluctuations and unpredictable transfers of power from within, Myanmar’s army remained as one of the most creative and perceptive regimes whereas the sluggish level of development and excavating humanitarian crisis continue being challenges to the democratic changeover of the nation. While it is too early to conclude that Myanmar’s transition is promising and without any political violence, Myanmar is no longer a place of reticence and there is an instantaneous flow of social changes happening. However, a more auspicious and equitable anticipation of political and economic liberalization is yet to be fulfilled.
This bold sentence serves as an attention grabber as it challenges a common dogma once stated by John Dalberg, “ Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” By making this brief but, powerful statement, Aung Sang Suu Kyi surprises her audience by blaming them for the corruption of the government making her audience more keen to understand her point of view. Aung Sang Suu Kyi then directs her words towards her Burmese people as she alludes to specific words such as “ Chanda- gati”, “Dosa-gati”, “Bhaya-gati” and “ Chanda-gati” (Kyi, 1) to explain the corruption of her land in the words of her people. This builds ethos as she can connect to her people and clearly explain how “chanda-gati” or the corruption built by fear is the most dangerous form of corruption. She can then further explain how the only way to root out the corruption of the Burmese Army and gain freedom is to first eradicate the people's fear of the government and instill confidence in the basic human rights of the Burmese
The state of power established through the imperialistic backdrop show that Orwell should have control over the Burmese. Orwell is a British colonial officer in Burma, which is under the control of the British, and because of this he should have authority and control over the Burmans. The presence of the empire is established when Orwell explains that, “with one part of my mind I thought of the British Raj as an unbreakable tyranny...upon the will of the prostrate people; with another part I thought that the greatest joy in the world would be to drive a bayonet into a Buddhist priest’s gut.” (144) This ideal imperialistic circumstance, where ...
The lack of nationalism also proved to be a conflict for the people of Burma or Myanmar. The militaristic government’s philosophy of ruling isolated left people to live in absolute poverty and is a major human rights concern.
In Burma, she found violence and the military dictatorship in power. The military regime perpetrated various human rights, jailing and murdering thousands of anti-government protectors and opposition supporters. Based on the family background, Suu Kyi thought she had a duty to help people, so she joined the protest movements and co-found the National League for Democracy(NLD). The league espoused human rights, most importantly the people’s right to choose their own government(Ashby& Ohrn 1995). she traveled throughout Burma making hundreds of speeches calling for reform. In May 1989, the NLD won most seats in government in the election, but the military regime denied the results of the election. She was put under house arrest without charges for fifteen
Lewin, Leppit, and White were cautious in the conclusions the drew from this study. They noted that autocratic leadership does get results and is preferred over democratic leadership. However they observed that autocratic leadership can create tension, apathy, frustration, and dependence by the group on the leader. Further, the researchers found that some of the differences in the behaviors of the children were associated with the presence or absence of the leader. Specifically, constructive effort declined in the autocratically controlled children groups. Finally, they observed very little value in laissez-faire control ---an essentially “no-leader” approach to leadership.
In The Quest of Democracy, Kyi argues that human rights is what democracy is and that democracy was always in Buddhist traditions. Once democracy became known in Burma, people got interested to know what democracy more in depth. It got people wanting to learn about modern politics and the nature of democracy. The idea of democracy was getting a good response due to a guarantee for privileges and freedom. However, it was also being questioned because how can they be sure that the system will always work. The burmese people became knowledgeable through Buddha. They had gone undergone through many
Through this we see that the author’s point of view is someone who understands that the events that took place that morning in Burma, were not humane and degrading.
Aung San Suu Kyi, Nobel laureate and de-facto leader of Myanmar’s civilian government, has long been hailed as a protector of human rights in her native country. It has thus, been incredibly surprising to witness her reaction to the recent forced exodus of nearly half a million minority Rohingya from within her regional borders. Despite being championed as the great savior of her country, she failed to condemn the atrocities for nearly a month; and, when she did finally speak up against the human rights abuses, she refused to address the United Nations accusations of ethnic cleansing. The Rohingya have been stateless since Myanmar’s 1974 Constitution and 1982 Citizenship Act excluded the minority Muslim group as a ‘national race’ . In The Origins of Totalitarianism , Hannah Arendt explores the idea that the interests of the nation state infringe upon the Universal Rights of Man. The
I will briefly discuss a harsh part of their history called the 8888 uprising where thousands of people were killed for peacefully protesting. . I will also connect the Burma situation with history in the United States during the Civil Rights Movement, when Martin Luther King preached equality by using the freedom to assemble. Although the Civil Rights Movement was more motivated by racism, Dr. King still preached for equality and the ability of the people to fight for what they want. My goal in this paper is to prove that the people in Burma do have a right to peacefully protest for what they want without any penalties. The First Amendment, Freedom of Assembly.
Yingluck Shinawatra was a relative unknown in the political sphere, entering politics with the Pheu Thai Party (PT) and immediately placed in the spotlight as the party’s front runner and contested in the 2011 elections with mere months of experience, an unlikely candidate in the male-dominated bastion of Thai politics. Yet she had not only won the elections but also by a considerable margin, enough to command a parliamentary majority without the need of a coalition, done only by Thaksin’s Thai Rak Thai Party before. She also made history for being Thailand’s first female Prime Minister and also one of its youngest in recent memory. Even so her capabilities were questioned, and her candidacy drew several sceptics. Despite winning the elections with a popular mandate, it remains a fact that Yingluck was a political neophyte and while she boasts several top posts in various industries during her professional career before entering politics, these companies were all linked to her elder brother Thaksin. In this essay I will argue that Yingluck has not contributed significantly to Thai politics because of her brother’s influence and the ineffectiveness of her policies. I will first address how her familial background has affected her leadership before addressing key policies which her administration has implemented.
Over time, Westerners came in contact with the natives. In the book Burmese Days by George Orwell, the author tells the story of the Western dominance in Burma. During the early 20th Century, the British Westerners gained control of Burman civilizations. A group of about ten British individuals maintain control of over 2,000 natives. Each character has different reasons and methods for wanting control. The locals accepted European dominance because the Europeans had strategies to legitimize their dominance. The local Burmese people viewed the Europeans in different ways. Elizabeth, Mr. and Mrs. Lakersteen, Dr. Veraswami, U Po Kyin, and Ma Hla May all have specialized reasons for maintaining
Authoritarian style governments come in different forms and apply varying amounts of violence when enforcing their rule. People who live in democratic style governments often do not understand why people accept living in an authoritarian state, forgetting that in fact the authoritarian form of government is the oldest form of government on earth. A dictatorship government is one type of authoritarian government that gains world attention most notably by the extreme violence used to control their citizens. This paper will review authoritarianism; why humans put up with it; traits of paranoid, narcissistic, and charismatic personalities; and highlight Idi Amin Dada as a case in point.
Though Burma became independent in 1948, a military junta took over in 1962. This military junta was initially a single-party socialist system. General Ne Win was the dictator at this time. He didn’t
In Buddhism’s most basic principles, it is understood that all beings have a right to live, life should respected and people should refrain from taking all life. Yet, currently in the country of Myanmar, extreme Buddhist monks are preaching religious superiority and leading a genocide on Myanmar’s minority religious people, especially Muslims, down to the women and children. To make matters worse Myanmar’s governing officials (exclusively Buddhist) have passed laws that assist in the persecution of minorities. There are some local reports that government authorities are tracking down and arresting religious minorities without reason. Then those who are arrested haven’t been seen or heard from since. With the known death toll of Myanmar Muslims and other minority groups increasing and the Myanmar government publicly admitting to “misplacing” huge numbers of people who fall into the religious minority, suspicions that the Myanmar government is assisting in this religious genocide have justifiably
Nemoto, K. (n.d) 'The Rohingya Issue: A Thorny Obstacle between Burma (Myanmar) and Bangladesh.', p. 5.