New “Burmese Road” for Democracy: Cohabitation with the Military


June 22, 2012

New “Burmese Road” for Democracy: Cohabitation with the Military

by John Teo@www.nst.com.my

PATH FORWARD: Country in a delicate dance between the military and new leaders in the mould of Aung San Suu Kyi

MYANMAR Opposition leader Aung Sang Suu Kyi has been making headlines ever since her release from house arrest and plunging headlong back into the country’s politics as an elected parliamentarian.

Despite the worldwide adulation she commands ever since her party was cheated out of a clear victory in the polls more than two decades ago, the Myanmar military actually did her a great turn by absorbing all the near-universal odium heaped on it and the country for ignoring the election results.

For if the election victory then were respected, Suu Kyi’s unsullied reputation might have long ago been compromised by the very messy business of governing Myanmar, which has known little but military government since Independence. It would have been even messier, perhaps impossible, if she had to govern without at least the military’s tacit goodwill.

Perhaps even more difficult than taking a hardline and principled stand on democracy is the path Suu Kyi now takes of cohabitation with the military and accepting working within the new rules of political engagement that allows a constitutionally-enshrined political role for the military.

Successful governance must temper political idealism with a healthy dose of realism. The political reality in Myanmar is that the military will remain — perhaps for quite a while — as the only truly effective governing institution with a national reach across the ethnically divided country.

For Myanmar’s own best interests, the functional fusing of political idealism and realism is probably the only viable option even if it is also fraught with deep challenges. These are yet early days, and already the spectre of a Yugoslavia-style splintering of Myanmar is not too far-fetched with the latest ethnic flare-up there.

All eyes are rightly now with the Lady, as Suu Kyi is widely known, even if she is still merely an Opposition Member of Parliament. For the path forward for Myanmar may still be set largely by its military-backed civilian government but her voice matters, not least because of the megaphone-like quality that attaches to it owing to her iconic international status.

The Myanmar government and the Lady must both know that they now either must hang together or they hang separately. This is what makes her public pronouncements now not just very important but very interesting.

She has so far evinced few signs of selling out her ideals in her careful choice of words. Part of that may be attributed to the luxury afforded her for not being in government and, therefore, not having to choose among tough public policy choices.

What is particularly striking though, has been Suu Kyi’s latest pronouncements on her country’s economic development and the role of foreign investments in that development.

She says she will be on the look-out for “ethical” investors who pick local partners to ensure development and its benefits reach ordinary people. All very fine words in an ideal world, of course.

But we do not live in an ideal world and the comparative models of Myanmar’s two giant neighbours with which it shares borders — China and India — are instructive. The two Asian giants are infinitely bigger in every sense and should in fact have great leeway with investors, but in reality they do not.

Following a more “ethical” path towards economic development would seem to suggest Suu Kyi prefers to go the “Indian” route rather than the “Chinese” one. Both routes carry benefits but also come with huge costs.

The Myanmar government’s and its opposition’s political and economic views may have their respective merits. The old “Burmese road” to development, with its autarchic undertones beloved of its generals, may have long ago been derided.

But Myanmar may be on a new, equally syncretic road involving a rather delicate dance between battle-hardened leaders of a rather military bent and new, thoughtful ones in the mould of Suu Kyi.

The world must be fully invested in this new “Burmese road” for the sake of all of Myanmar’s people.

6 thoughts on “New “Burmese Road” for Democracy: Cohabitation with the Military

  1. Look at Turkey and Indonesia for how democracy works. The military in both countries keep the politicians in check. It is not American democracy but it provides stability. Aung San Suu Kyi must be practical and realistic and as John Teo says,”The Myanmar government and the Lady must both know that they now either must hang together or they hang separately. This is what makes her public pronouncements now not just very important but very interesting”. The Major powers should, therefore, leave Burma to the Burmese people to take the new “Burmese Road”.–Din Merican

  2. Burma Road? Haha.., what a humdinger! It was built by the British from Lashio, Burma to Kunming, Yunnan. The connection with Ledo (Stilwell Road), N.E. India was made by the US during WWII. Both are as tortuous, with myriads of hairpin bends as a psychotic snake. So the appellation may be apt up to a point, since Burma is really a mess. Gets even more apparent, as foreign carpetbaggers strut their stuff.

    The Tatmadaw has it’s paws in every economic activity under the ‘Myanmarese’ sun – from local agri-business (they often times steal land from the local farmers to cultivate poppies) – to their international proxies. They need to be tackled first, before any talk of ‘Reform’. Their humongous stash of hard cash sequestered in off-shore accounts will eclipse anything UMNOb has. Let the generals retire, and run their favorite Buddhist charity and follow the ROE of similar military men of the Suharto era.

    Mme. Aung San, is very much aware that loosening the Army’s grip on the economy is a condition of lessening it’s political power. It will somehow have to be done is Burma is truly to change. Now you know her reluctance in ‘upholding’ the skewed constitution, but is willing to ‘Respect’ it.

    Btw, PM Thein Sein, the ‘reformer’ was the head of the ‘Triangle Regional Military Command’ from 1997-2001. Guess what he was cultivating?

    I don’t have much hope that it will remain a ‘Union’ for long should the Tatmadaw lose their grip. More likely a Balkanization and gory Yugoslav-like implosion, unless the Lady can somehow use her considerable influence and gravitas to cobble a loose Federation of disparate people and geographical regions. The generals can never do that.

  3. The Burmese people have spoken twice through national elections(1990 and 2012) by choosing Ms Aung San Suu Kyi and her NLD to manage their lives,
    The Burmese Generals are still running the country,some Generals were murderers,and they practised cronyism to enrich themselves.
    Without Western support of her cause since 8.8.1988, she would most likely be dead now. Most ASEAN countries and China didn’t care about her or her cause.
    It is now time for Burmese brothers and sisters in ASEAN family to truly support them after 50 years of terrible hardship and suffering,this is not the time for greedy Western and ASEAN capitalists to seize this opportunity by exploiting their natural resources.

  4. Myanmar is by no means the only state in the region “artificially” created by prevailing conveniences of the time. And for this reason Balkanisation is always a possibility. But the point is that for the first time in perhaps half a century there is a very real possibility that the ongoing cohabitation will enable the country to carve out its own destiny with a semblance of stability and a peace, hopefully, guaranteed by the military.

    For the rest of the world and especially the Arab Spring countries this cohabitation may provide a crucial direction to follow as they struggle to come to terms with their own entrenched juntas. Egypt is right now facing this very dilemma…

  5. The military has pulled sheep oever the eyes of the western world and the First Lady of Burma. ASEAN, please do declare victory so soon. We are not even seeing the seeds of transformation from Miltary Rule to Civilian Rule. This is all a game a strategic two steps backwards for the military before they they take four steps leap forward.

  6. Military rule/Civilian rule? No… that is not important. What is crucial is the emergence of a political climate which enables Myanmar to DEVELOP and, hopefully, make life better for its people.

    For this to happen the rule has to be by the military AND civilians.

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.