What can one foretell about Burma’s immediate future?
Sanjay (Xonzoi) Barbora
On April 1, 2012 Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and her party won 40 seats in the by-elections that immediately made her the leader of the opposition in Burma’s House of Representatives (Pyithu Hluttaw). It makes her National League for Democracy (NLD) the biggest independent opposition party in Burma’s bicameral parliament. When the Burmese military junta announced general elections, in accordance with the stipulations of a new constitution, on November 7, 2010 very few people were convinced about its legality. The ruling State Peace and Development Council (SDPC), made it even more obvious that they had no intention of sharing power with others, when they reserved a good number of seats for the military in order to ensure that the military retains a crucial veto in parliament. In addition, it manipulated the rules of the election to such an extent that it was impossible for anyone to beat the party it had anointed as its proxy, the Union Solidarity and Democratic Party (USDP). As expected, the USPD is the ruling party in the House of Representatives and its leader, Thein Sein, is the president of the country.
When the elections were held in 2010, the NLD was amongst a few parties to announce that it would boycott them for reasons of lack of transparency. Many commentators, especially those who called for a guided transition to civilian rule, decried the NLD’s boycott and said that the party was headed for political oblivion, saying it would yield to a democratic “third force” comprising the ethnic nationalities, former NLD activists who formed their own party called the National Democratic Force (NDF) and the National Union Party (NUP). As things have unfolded over the last two years, it is evident that the NLD has not been relegated to oblivion and that the other parties, including the ethnic groups that participated in the elections, still have to figure out a way to address the pressing issues that this guided transition to democracy is throwing up in its wake.
The “third front” theory that excluded the NLD, found its expression amongst donor agencies and interested political parties, such as India and some western governments. Following Cyclone Nargis and the human disasters that came in its wake in 2008, the Burmese junta was forced to allow donors into the country to help with economic and social reconstruction. Despite reports of widespread corruption and misappropriation of funds and material, the donors who did manage to start work in the country, were optimistic that they could remain for a longer duration. It was partly their ingenuity that created a mythical “third force” from a civil society that was constructed with aid money. The failure of this force to dislodge the NLD has been a telling factor in subsequent attempts of donors and western countries (including India), to woo Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and her party.
This was underlined last month in Berkeley, California, when the local Rotary Club invited Dr. Sein Win, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi’s cousin, who is also the chairman of the National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma, to receive an award for her commitment to peace. In the course of his acceptance of the award for his cousin, Dr Sein Win acknowledged that this is a turning point for Burma. He also said that the NLD had had to make changes to its earlier boycott stance in order to effect a national reconciliation and reconstruction of the country. Implicit in his discussion, was the fact that this would also involve interventions from powerful donors and the United Nations. In his conversation with this author, he likened the current phase to Burma’s 19th century contact with the west, where all manner of pirates and speculators were responsible for stripping the country of its natural wealth. “This time, we also want a share”, he said, somewhat resigned to an unsure future.
The descendants of the early profiteers, who looted Burma, now come in different colours and speak in equally different accents. It is easy to see how they can demand discipline and predictability from their subjects in Burma. However, it is not simply a matter of installing a right regime and carrying on with the business of expropriating the country’s resources. Burma’s myriad peoples are attempting to address concerns that have defined our modern past as members of a global collective. Like the millions who have been relegated to history’s back burner, they are asking for peace and justice with an acknowledgement of redress for historical wrongs that they have been subjected to. Unless Burma’s new/old rulers respect the universality of their current condition, no amount of window-dressing with lead to meaningful changes for our neighbourhood.
Sanjay (Xonzoi) Barbora
xonzoi.barbora@gmail.com
