The Prospect of Democracy in Burma
The prospect for the development of a democratic state in Burma has recently become a remote possibility. Burma’s military leaders have been holding talks with the opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi and her party, the National League for Democracy (NLD). The dialogue started while Aung San Suu Kyi was still under house arrest. When she was released in 2002, the international community and the people of Burma expected the process to evolve to the next stage – substantive political negotiations. However, the whole process has stalled. Burma’s military remain in control.
In justifying the hiatus, the Burmese military leaders engage in various forms of platitudinous rhetoric, carefully designed to obfuscate their totalitarian intent. The theme of this rhetoric is that the country is undergoing a transition toward a multi-party democracy. Burma’s influential intelligence chief, General Khin Nyunt, has warned that “such a transition cannot be done in haste or in a haphazard manner. The world is full of examples where hasty transition from one system to another led to unrest, instability and even failed states” .
However, this linguistic charade is not consistently maintained. Burma’s generals have made disturbing pronouncements that overtly envision a highly compromised, paternalistic democracy. They assert that any democracy in Burma must incorporate ‘Asian values’, and is therefore incompatible with Western models of democracy. The generals have proved recalcitrant in the face of international pressure, and persist with their particularly Burmese variant of democracy. Nyunt recently said that “The democracy we seek to build may not be identical to the West but it will surely be based on universal principles of liberty, justice and equality”. It is more than likely that Burma’s military rulers are now looking at the Chinese political model as the basis of their new constitution.
This rhetoric, centered around various abstractions and elaborations of political vision, is calculated to distract from the decidedly non-democratic Burmese political reality. What has actually been happening is that the country’s top military leader – Senior General Than Shwe – has strengthened his control over both the army and the administrative structure. Ever since the arrest of four members of the former military dictator General Ne Win’s famil...
... middle of paper ...
...ase against the government - without provoking violence - while at the same time cooperating with the generals in a dialogue which recognizes the limitations of its current political potency.
Bibliography
Evans, George, ‘Human rights in Burma’, Contemporary Review, Oct, 1994, v265, n1545, p178
Jagan, Larry, Burma's opposition slowly rises from ashes http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/1885565.stm BBC News. 2002
Jagan, Larry, Junta has little to celebrate http://www.rebound88.net/sp/junta/s14junta-thanshwe.html
Bangkok Post, 2002.
Jagan, Larry, Deadlock in Burma http://www.himalmag.com/2002/october/burma.htm 2002.
Lintner, Bertil, ‘Divide and rule: peace treaties marginalise democracy groups.’ Far Eastern Economic Review, Jan 27, 1994, v157, n4, p20
Linter, Bertil, ‘New camouflage: army maintains tight controls despite election pledge’, Far Eastern Economic Review, May 11, 1989, v144, n19, p32
Maidment, Richard. Goldblatt, David. Mitchell, Jeremy. Governance in the Asia Pacific. Routlage, London, 1998.
Seth, Mydans, Burmese General Says Transition to Democracy Will Be Slow. http://www.burmaforumla.org/burmese_general_says_transition_.htm New York Times, 2002.
Snider, D. M., Toner, K., & Oh, P. (2009). The Army’s Professional Military Ethic in an Era of Persistent Conflict. Security (p. 30). Carlisle.
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 ...
"Myanmar National Gun Acts of 1984." The Assembly of the Union. http://www.amyothahluttaw.gov.mm/ (accessed April 18, 2014).
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.
Tarrow, Sidney. “Transnational Politics: Contention and Institutions in International Politics.” Annual Review of Political Science, 2001.4.
Farber, H. S., & Gowa, J. (1997). Common Interests or Common Politics? Reinterpreting the Democratic Peace. Journal of Politics 59 (2): 393-417.
Zayan, J. (2011, February 14). Egypt Activists and Army Discuss Reforms. The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved December 7, 2013, from http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/egypt-activists-and-army-discuss-reforms-20110214-1as8u.html
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
The democratic peace theory was not always seen as the substantial argument and significant contribution to the field of International Relations that it is today. Prior to the 1970’s, it was the realist and non-realist thought that took preeminence in political theoretical thinking. Though the democratic peace theory was first criticized for being inaccurate in its claim that democracy promotes peace and as such democracies do not conflict with each other, trends, statistical data, reports have suggested and proved that the democratic peace theory is in fact valid in its claim. Over the years, having been refined, developed and amended, it is now most significant in explaining modern politics and it is easy to accept that there is indeed a lot of truth in the stance that democracy encourages peace. The democratic peace theory is a concept that is largely influenced by the likes of Immanuel Kant, Wilson Woodrow and Thomas Paine.
The relationship and cooperation in handling the issue in Southern Thailand between Malaysia and Thailand government since a long time ago, has become disappointed, frustration and unsatisfied. This is might be best description that has been looked up since the working relations between past Thai governments and their Malaysian counterparts was comes to Southern Thailand (Thanet, 2013). For the Thailand government, cooperation with the Malaysian authorities is really needed while in dealing with the separatist insurgents that often to the slip across the porous border from Thailand. Meanwhile, for the Malaysian side, through the sharing of same ethnicity and Islamic religion in the Southern Thai Muslims, was means that their politicians ought to have a key role to play in understanding and resolving insurgency issues in Southern Thailand. Therefore, it might can be seem in logically think that, without the help by the Malaysian government, the issues that regards to Muslim separatist moments in the Deep South would be difficul...
The lives and prosperity of millions of people depend on peace and, in turn, peace depends on treaties - fragile documents that must do more than end wars. Negotiations and peace treaties may lead to decades of cooperation during which disputes between nations are resolved without military action and economic cost, or may prolong or even intensify the grievances which provoked conflict in the first place. In 1996, as Canada and the United States celebrated their mutual boundary as the longest undefended border in the world, Greece and Turkey nearly came to blows over a rocky island so small it scarcely had space for a flagpole.1 Both territorial questions had been raised as issues in peace treaties. The Treaty of Ghent in 1815 set the framework for the resolution of Canadian-American territorial questions. The Treaty of Sevres in 1920, between the Sultan and the victorious Allies of World War I, dismantled the remnants of the Ottoman Empire and distributed its territories. Examination of the terms and consequences of the two treaties clearly establishes that a successful treaty must provide more than the absence of war.
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
Pugh, C.L. (2013) 'Is Citizenship the Answer? Constructions of belonging and exclusion for the stateless Rohingya of Burma.', p. 3.