|
Article |
|
MYANMAR'S VISION FOR DEMOCRACY AND DEVELOPMENT Fazal-ur-Rahman
* Myanmar is an important country in terms of its strategic location connecting South Asia with Southeast Asia and sharing borders with Bangladesh, India, China, Thailand, and Laos. It is the second largest country in Southeast Asia after Indonesia, with a population of around 48.3 million, and an area of 676.6 thousand square kilometres, and is home for over one hundred nationalities of which ninety percent are Buddhists. The country is rich in natural resources. However, in the post-independence decades the benefits could not be realised and the country failed to achieve a reasonable level of overall development due to unstable socio-political environment. Myanmar has a history of continuing insurgencies in its various border regions since it achieved independence in 1948. Even today there exist armed insurgencies in some areas.1 Also the country has experienced protracted periods of military rule, which consequently impacted on the evolution of democratic institutions and the pace of overall development of the country. Since 1996, the regime has been subject to international sanctions by bodies such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), International Labour Orgnisation (ILO), besides sanctions by several Western countries. The international Human Right organisations allege that Myanmar’s ruling military regime, continues to be among the worst human rights violators of present times. According to their reports, human rights violations include: extra-judicial, summary and arbitrary executions, enforced disappearances, rape, torture, inhuman treatment, mass arrests, forced labour, forced relocation, and denial of freedom of assembly, association, expression and movement. The ruling military regime, State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) denies all allegations and accuses certain Western countries for adopting double standards in their policies. Most analysts agree that the sanctions on Myanmar have not helped to achieve the desired results, though these are hurting the economy, but at the same time they increased the sufferings of common people and hindered economic development. Professor David I. Steinberg, an expert on Myanmar, while commenting on the effectivness of the sanctions writes, ‘The tactic to isolate Burma has not worked and is unlikely to be effective for two reasons. First, Burma is not an industrialised state and can continue to limp along to the detriment of the well-being of its people, without anything more dire than the continuing debilitating economic crisis it now experiences and that pauperises its people. In fact, the military is at its strongest since its coup of 1988. Second, no country has followed the US on its sanctions policy and its attempt to quarantine Burma, though most industrialised states have cut off official economic aid. This failure to follow the US lead is especially relevant in the case of China, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, India and Japan.’2 Myanmars’ neighbours have a stake in the stability and development of that country, therefore they have tried to help Myanmar by engaging it economically in ASEAN, BIMSTEC, Greater Mekong Sub-regional Development Programme, Ganga Mekong Cooperation Programme and Economic Cooperation Strategy among Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar and Thailand, thus rendering the sanctions ineffective to some extent. The regime in Myanmar seems to have acknowledged the fact that given the international and regional environment, change in the political system is inevitable if the country has to progress. Therefore, it is deemed necessary that the transition to democracy has to be gradual, smooth and in the larger long-term interest of the country. Moreover, the economic development in the neighbouring countries, perhaps is yet another important factor forcing the present regime to take drastic measures towards reconciliation with the political opposition, speed up the process of restoration of democracy and opening up of the ecomomy by availing the existing opportunities for integrating the country in regional frameworks. The present regime in Myanmar claims to be constantly making efforts to maintain the unity and independence of the Union, which is accorded top priority. Also, over the years, it has successfully entered into peace agreements with seventeen insurgent groups. Though the movement towards democracy in the past years has been evidently slow, the government has presented a ‘Roadmap to Democracy’ on August 30, 2003, that envisioned a seven-step initiative for the restoration of democracy in the country. The implementation process of this Roadmap still has some unanswered questions. The main opposition pro-democracy political forces are still unable to initiate political activity, as their top leadership remains in jails or house arrest. Recently, the government has started releasing political opponents and there are growing indications that the political opposition will reach a compromise on the modalities of the plan for the restoration of democracy and work with the government for the restoration of democracy. However, a dialogue between the government and the opposition has yet not begun. Before highlighting the salient features of the Roadmap for democracy, it is worth a while to have a cursory look at the political history of Myanmar. Brief Political History of Myanmar
In 1989, the Burmese regime announced that the official name of the country was henceforth to be Myanmar, and the United Nations now uses that name. Myanmar has always been the name of the country in the Burmese language, whereas Burma has always been used in English. Some countries such as the US and Australia, which disapprove of the military regime, continue to call it Burma, and interestingly this is the name that pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi uses. For convience, both the names are used in the following paras in the context in which they occur.
The first Burmese Empire was created in 1057, following the conversion of people of the region to Buddhism. After the devastating invasion by the Mongol army of Kublai Khan in 1287, Burma broke up into several states. Ever since, the Burmese inhabitants of the Irrawaddy valley have sought to regain control of the neighbouring hill peoples such as the Shan and the Karen, but these peoples have usually maintained their de facto independence.
The Portugese reached Burma in the late 15th century, and established trading posts, but their attempts to extend their control were repelled. This external threat galvanised the Burmese to establish a stronger state, and in 1613, King Aukhpetlan decisively defeated Portuguese attempts to take over Burma.
By the 18th century conflicts had begun to occur along the Burmese border with British India, and the British proved a far greater threat than the other European powers. The First Burmese War (1824-26) ended with Burma ceding territory to the British, and the Second Burmese War (1852) resulted in the annexation of Lower Burma (in the south) and its conversion to a province of British India.
King Mindon Min of Upper (northern) Burma (ruled 1853-78) tried to modernise the Burmese state and economy to resist British encroachments better, and he fortified the northern capital, Mandalay. But in 1886, his son Thibaw Min, was unable to prevent the Third Burmese War, which resulted in the annexation of the whole country and the abolition of the Burmese monarchy.
Burma benefitted economically from British rule, but Burmese nationalism always remained powerful. In 1935, the British separated Burma from India and promised that self-government would be introduced. But in early 1942 the Japanese invaded the country and rapidly drove the British out.
Burmese nationalists, led by Aung San, father of Aung San Suu Kyi, at first welcomed the defeat of the British, but soon realised that the Japanese had no intention of allowing Burmese independence. Aung San then established contact with the British and transferred the support of his 10,000 strong army to the Allied side, in exchange for a promise of immediate independence after the war.
Following a 1947 conference in London, Burma gained its independence from the United Kingdom on January 4, 1948. Attempts by the non-Burmese minorities to secede from the Burmese state were prevented, but the Burmese government achieved no more control over the hill territories than the British had.
National elections in April 1947 had returned Aung San with an overwhelming majority. But while the new constitution was being drawn up Aung San was assassinated by a political rival. He was succeeded by his close associate U Nu. Under his government Burma enjoyed a period of peace and democratic government, but in 1958, he was succeeded by General Ne Win. When elections in 1962 gave U Nu a majority, Ne Win staged a coup and brought Burmese democracy to an end.
Under Ne Win, Burma became an isolated military dictatorship, in which the Burma Socialist Programme Party (BSPP) imposed a version of socialism which soon reduced a prosperous country to poverty. The regime conducted many fruitless wars against the Karens and Shans, against the Burmese Communists, and later against drug bosses such as Khun Sa.
In 1974, Ne Win declared the Socialist Republic of the Union of Burma, with a facade of popular government to conceal the reality of military rule. Demonstrations against the regime broke out in 1988, and hundreds of people were killed. The military then removed Ne Win from power and promised free elections. Aung San Suu Kyi, Aung San’s daughter, returned from exile and established the National League for Democracy (NLD).
After further disturbances the promised elections were held in 1990. Against the expectations of the military regime the NLD won a landslide victory. After a period of indecision and choas the military regime declined to hand over power to the NLD. Aung San Suu Kyi was put under house arrest, the NLD banned, and a body called the State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC) took power, headed by General Saw Maung.
The military regime has ruled Burma ever since, with Saw Maung being succeeded in 1992 by General Than Shew, and the SLORC being replaced in 1997 by a ‘State Peace and Development Council’. In 1991, Aung San Suu Kyi, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize and under international pressure the regime released her from house arrest in 1995. Plans were announced for a National Convention to draft a new constitution, but this body could not achieve any substantive results as the NLD opted to stay out of the process. Following a political row between the military regime and the NLD, the National Convention could not carry on its functioning and suspended in 1996. Since the announcement of Roadmap for Democracy in August 2003, preparation for convening of National Convention are underway. It is expected that the National Convention will be convened in the middle of this year.3
The Process of Reconciliation
For the restoration of democracy, a peaceful and stable political environment is a prerequisite. The Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs, H.E. U Khin Maung Win, stated that, ‘Politically, there cannot be lasting peace and stability in the country without national unity. Unfortunately, the divide and rule policy practiced by the British colonialists resulted in suspicions and discord among national races. This subsequently led to armed insurgencies that spread to various parts of the country for decades. The question of achieving national unity and bringing to an end the armed insurgencies are vital issues for any government, past, present and future.’4 According to the government claims, the present conditions of peace and stability are unprecedented. And this environment has been created due to the government’s policy of reconciliation with the insurgent groups, a process initiated since 1989. The government claims that, with the return of 17 armed groups to the legal fold, the issue of armed insurgency that has plagued the country since its independence is almost over. In January 2004, the SPDC entered into a historic ceasefire talks with the largest armed ethnic resistance group, the Karen National Union (KNU). Karen leader General Bo Mya himself led a 21-member delegation to Rangoon, his first visit to the capital since the armed conflict began over a half century ago. The government has yet to negotiate peace with the some of the remaining armed groups in Shan, Karenni and Chin areas for completion of its reconciliation initiative.
Armed National Groups that have Achieved Peace with the Government
Source: Presentation by H. E. U Khin Maung Win, Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Union of Myanmar, Myanmar Roadmap to Democracy: The Way Forward, Seminar on ‘Understanding Myanmar’, MICT Park, Yangon, January 27-28, 2004.
But the critical issue here is that these armed groups, which have approximately one hundred thousand armed members have not surrendered their arms. There are no written agreements with binding clauses for both the sides to hold responsible either side for any violation of the understanding reached, thus making the truce fragile. In any eventuality, where serious differences emerge between the government and the armed groups or political instability, the country again can be plunged into violent hostilities.
The Roadmap for Democracy
Prime Minister, General Khin Nyunt, in his address to the Members of the State Peace and Development Council, on August 30, 2003, announced that Myanmar will be implementing a 7-step programme for country’s transition to a democratic state. The 7-step Roadmap includes: 1. Reconvening of the National Convention, which has been adjourned since 1996; 2. After the successful holding of the National Convention, step by step implementation of the process necessary for the emergence of a genuine and disciplined democractic state; 3. Drafting of a new constitution in accordance with basic principles and detailed basic principles laid down by the National Convention; 4. Adoption of the constitution by the national refrendum; 5. Holding of free and fair elections for Pyithu Hluttaws (Legislative bodies) according to the new constitution; 6. Convening of Hluttaws attended by Hluttaw members in accordance with the new constitution; 7. Building a modern, developed and democratic nation by the state leaders elected by the Hluttaw; and the government and other central organs formed by the Hluttaw.5
To begin work on the Roadmap, the government has already announced implementing a two-pronged simultaneous strategy, which includes on the one hand preprations for the holding of the National Convention and on the other creating a peaceful conducive environment for holding of this Convention. The National Convention first met in 1993 and was adjourned in 1996. The future National Convention will pick up the threads from the tasks acomplished by the last Convention. The previous Conventions have been able to accomplish the following tasks:
For implementation of the first step of the Roadmap, the Myanmar government has constituted three main organs for the smooth convening of the National Convention. These are the National Convention Convening Commission, the National Convention Convening Work Committee and the National Convention Management Committee. The National Convention is expected to be convened by the middle of 2004. According to the government’s plans, in order to give a fair chance and opportunity to the people from all walks of life, the National Convention would comprise eight segments of society, such as, delegates of political parties; representatives-elect delegates; delegates of nationalities; delegates of peasantry; delegates of workers; delegates of intellectuals and intelligentsia; delegates of state service personnel; and other invited delegates. The National Convention will formulate the State Constitution, for which six basic principles have already been laid down through a Declaration (No. 11/92) issued by the State Law and Order Restoration Council on April 24, 1992. These principles are: 1. non-disintegration of the Union, 2. non-disintegration of national soladirity, 3. perpetuation of sovereignty, 4. flourishing of a genuine multiparty democracy system, 5. development of eternal principles of justice, liberty and equality in the State, 6. for the Tatmadaw (armed forces) to be able to participate in the national political leadership role of the State.7
While addressing an international seminar on ‘Understanding Myanmar’ in January 2004, the Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Union of Myanmar, U Khin Maung Win said, ‘Each country in the world has its own and sometimes unique conditions which differentiate it from others. The same holds true for Myanmar. A comprehensive understanding of the policies, practices and activities of Myanmar would only be possible by comprehending the country’s special corcumstances. Today, Myanmar is in transition to a democratic state. The democratic system that it envisaged is one that is in accordance with the objective conditions of the country as well as the aspirations of the people. The democratic system being built in Myanmar may not be identical to those of other countries given the unique situation and circumstances of the country.’8 How far the democracy model of Myanmar would be close to the internationally acceptable norms and practices in democratic states is yet to be seen. Political Landscape of Myanmar The population of Myanmar is made up of 60% Burmans and 40% from 130+ other ethnic groups and sub-groups. Bangladesh, India, China, Laos and Thailand surround Myanmar and the ethnic groups are mainly located in the border areas, surrounding the central Burman area like a great horseshoe. Of the main ethnic groups fighting for greater autonomy or secession from the Union, 17 have signed cease-fire agreements with the military regime, while a few of them continue to pursue armed insurgency. Thousands of Burmese citizens remain in exile in refugee camps in Bangladesh and Thailand, while an equal number is of internally displaced people.
Myanmar has been ruled by military dictatorships since 1962. The current military regime, the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC), formerly known as the State Law and Order Restoration Council, seized power in a military coup in 1988. The Union Solidarity and Development Association (USDA) is said to be a military-created mass mobilisation organisation, founded to support the military and its programmes, and Senior General and Chairman of the State Peace and Development Council, Than Shwe, is its patron. It is said to have over 16 million members, about one-third of the total population over the age of 10. It has been used in the past to stage rallies in support of the government policies and the military prescribed activities. It seems to have been modelled on Golkar, the Suharto-supportive ‘functional groups’ in Indonesia before it became a political party. Like Golkar, the USDA has the makings of a military-dominated political base should the country return to the elective process.9
The main pro-democracy opposition political party is the National League for Democracy (NLD) led by the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, Aung San Suu Kyi. In the general elections, which took place in 1990, NLD won 82% of the seats to the National Assembly. However, the results of the elections were never implemented. As a result of the ensuing political turmoil Aung San Suu Kyi was put under house arrest. She was first released from house arrest in 1995.10
Aung San Suu Kyi was again arrested on August 25, 2000 and released on May 6, 2002. Her release raised hopes that the State Peace and Development Council, was finally planning to embark on a process of political reform. However, at the end of May 2003 Aung San Suu Kyi was once again detained, following violent clashes during her trip to Kachin State in the north. Several NLD members were also imprisoned and the government ordered the closing of all NLD offices in the country. Aung San Suu Kyi still remains under house arrest. However, some of the NLD leaders have been released. As the time for convening the National Convention is nearing, there are indications that the Aung San Suu Kyi will also be freed from house-detention. Prospects for the Roadmap The regime in Myanmar is seeking the understanding of the international community for what it considers the step by step political reform process in a country which, according to them, has special circumstances. The response of the international community to the Roadmap is mixed. Some countries, especially the US, EU, Japan and Australia have expressed dissappointment, refering to the conditions prevailing in the country where the opposition leaders are either in jails or under house-arrest. Political activity and dissenting expressions are still banned. Therefore, they have shown no sign of flexibility towards Maynamar in their policies and continue with the sanctions imposed on the country. There may not be a visible change in the attitude of Western countries untill the pro-democracy leaders are released and the reform process achieve substantive progress. In the regional context, since the ASEAN Ministerial Meeting in Phnom Penh in 2003, ASEAN has exerted some pressure on Yangon, but at the same time is willing to support the SPDC’s national reconciliation efforts and encourages transition to restoration of democracy. ‘For ASEAN it is important that there is national reconciliation and some political development in Myanmar, because the status quo has tarnished ASEAN’s image and has affected its relations with her dialogue partners, especially the EU and the US. It would be a big blow for Myanmar if ASEAN’s dialogue partners boycotted the ASEAN Post-Ministerial Conference and the ASEAN Regional Forum. This would also affect ASEAN’s credibility and prestige in the region and the world.’11 In 2006, Myanmar will assume the chairmanship of ASEAN. It is important for the regional organisation to sustain its activities without any disruption caused due to the domestic problems of Myanmar. So far, repeated requests from ASEAN leaders for the release of Aung San Suu Kyi and persuading the regime for entering into a political dialogue with the NLD have been ignored by the Government in Myanmar. However, ASEAN has chosen not to pressure Myanmar to the extent that it reverts back to an isolationist policy and scuttle the process of reconciliation and political reforms. That would negatively impact ASEAN and the process of regional integration. ASEAN member countries would most likely pursue a cautious approach while facilitating the reconciliation and reform process. There is a need that Myanmar government come up with a more definitive and transparent approach towards its political reform process. The regime has not been able to define any time frame for the completion of this process and restoration of democracy. Also the mechanism through which representatives of various segments of civil society would be invited to participate in the National Convention and subsequently engaging in drafting State Constitution is not defined. Such kind of ambiguities result in suspicions regarding the sincerity and intent of the government. For gaining credibility and confidence at domestic and regional levels, there has to be an acceptable degree of openness for members of international community, especially the ASEAN countries, to monitor the process and make unbiased assessments of the ground situation. There are positive indications, so far, that the regime in Myanmar is willing to accept a multi-party political system with a permanent political role for the military not subservient to the civilian political authority, owing to the complex issues of national security and cohesion. Irreversible and sustained progress on the Roadmap would open new and immense opportunities for Myanmar for economic development and prosperity. Reference
|