Shock Result in Burmese Election- Military Wins

The election rigging wasn't that blatant guys. There were other factors mitigating against an opposition victory, namely the lack of a viable opposition.

http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2010/11/11/a-voice-from-burma-i-feel-helpless/#more-11543

← Burma votes 2010 – Post-poll update
A voice from Burma: “I feel helpless”
November 11th, 2010 by Kyansin, Guest Contributor · Add a Comment

I was just nine years old when elections were held in Myanmar in 1990 for the first time in 30 years. I lived in North Okkalapa township at that time and there was a ballot station next to my house.

My brothers – or, I should say, my “cousin brothers” – and I were happy to see the big crowds at the station and we played with all the other children in our neighbourhood, running around all the people queuing to vote. There was a real carnival atmosphere, as the government had encouraged everyone to get out and have their say.

We had no idea what “voting” meant. What was it the adults were all talking excitedly about?

Regardless, we had a lot of fun because we did not have to do our school lessons and also escaped our enforced daily afternoon nap, which was something we all hated. Our parents were only focused on the final result of election; we took the rare opportunity to ask for pocket money, which was given freely, and bought snacks at the shop. While others were voting for freedom that day, my friends and I felt that we had already got it.

But our “democracy”, our time in the sun – like that of the National League for Democracy and Daw Aung San Suu Kyi – lasted for only one day. The next morning we had to get up and go to school, and in the afternoon my mum forced me to sleep when I wanted to go out and play with my friends in the neighbourhood again.

A lot has changed in the intervening 20 years. My mum no longer makes me nap in the afternoon (conversely, now I usually want to nap after lunch). But many things have not changed. The military is still in charge, still in control, even though Daw Aung San Suu Kyi’s party thumped the National Unity Party in 1990.

Now I am almost 30 and had the chance to vote for the first time on November 7. While I, like most of my generation, know little about politics, I know what is going on in my country. We want change; we need change. I resolved to vote for the party that I thought had the best chance of giving me what I desired and also hoped other people would share my idea.

There were only eight or nine people queuing when I arrived at the station in the morning but after waiting for 25 minutes the line did not move at all. Some people were not on the electoral roll and were in a heated argument with the election commission staff.

A woman who looked to be about 55 was not on the list of eligible voters in our ward, despite all the other members of her family being able to vote. Her complaints finally came to nothing; she was not allowed to vote.

Then we heard a man leave the station and complain loudly: “It seems so strange and difficult to accept that a couple can live at the same address for many years and one is included on the voting list and the other not is not.”

It turned out he had come to the voting station with his wife – who was able to vote – but his name was not included so he lost his right to vote. He seemed so frustrated, longing his chance to give a vote after many years. Finally, he got the message: he was wasting his time. Waiting and complaining in front off the office was also dangerous; two policemen wandered from across the road towards him.

As I was watching this unfold, an old lady behind me whispered: “Which parties are contesting in this township? Which one should I vote for?”

When I turned around to face her, a Hindu woman in her 20s standing behind the old lady nodded her head in silent agreement.

“Yeah, me too. I don’t know anything about the election, I have no idea how to vote,” she said.

I was stunned and momentarily could not find the words to reply to them.

In my mind, I was speaking a lot: “Oh my God, they are queuing to vote but they have no idea which party they should vote for.”

I wondered how many people were standing outside the 40,000 ballots stations across the country and whispering the same confused questions. The pair probably interpreted my long silence as a sign I didn’t want to answer them but really I just felt sorry for them. But not just them. I felt sorry for my township and my country; the future of the Myanmar people.

Later, when it came my turn to draw the voting paper from the election commission staff, I found my name was spelled wrong on their voting list. Silently I prayed they would still let me vote. It felt like I had to wait an eternity as they discussed my fate but finally they handed over the ballot papers.

I did my duty as a citizen. I voted. There are no words to describe my happiness.

But my pleasure did not last much long. It disappeared on my way home, when I was chatting with a trishaw driver.

“I have not chosen to vote for any party,” the 44-year-old man said. “Ahh. I am not interested at all in the election. For poor people like me, we don’t have time to think about it carefully. Politics, voting, the election – it won’t fill our stomachs.”

“Some people say that we need to vote if we want change for our country. But I think nothing will change in the future whether we vote or not. Commodity prices are even going up because of the election,” he added.

Many people also shared his view and did not expect any positive change from the election, including my father. They said they already knew what the result would be, who would ultimately win and who would continue to control the country. What they were worried about was that the election would make the situation worse.

And then there were the people – including some of my friends and family – who voted for the widely hated Union Solidarity and Development Party, something I never expected them to do. How could they vote for a party formed by the military, the very people who had made us suffer?

“We know the situation well. We know what party we should vote for and what party we should not vote for. But it was not really a choice for us. We voted for the USDP because our sons work for the government. We were worried that something bad would happen to them if we did not vote for the government party,” said a couple from South Dagon in their 50s.

There may be a lot of people like them. They are educated and know very well how the military government treats the people. But it is sometimes difficult for people to bring about change because we have all been oppressed, been under their control, for many years. Sometimes it’s just hard to imagine change.

For a brief period on Sunday night, I could see a kind of change was within our grasp. I’d heard informally from friends that the NDF had won many constituencies in Yangon, including my own. The USDP candidate was trailing far behind in third. The military party had effectively lost the city to the democratic parties but I knew it would be a vastly different story in the villages.

Three days on we still don’t know the official result, but it’s clear the USDP has won a massive majority.

Many of the seats the NDF was leading they have now lost; in Sanchaung, the one seat where a government minister was defeated, the election commission is recounting votes and not allowing parties scrutinise the process. In my own township, the despised USDP candidate is believed to have leapfrogged the two democratic candidates who were leading, following personal intervention from the Mayor of Yangon.

It’s fair to say 36 parties, and probably close to 29 million voters, are disgusted, ashamed at what’s happened. Personally, I feel helpless. For a brief period, one short evening, I thought things were changing for the better in my country. Once again, those hopes have been dashed. I am reminded of what my dad told me a few weeks ago: “Why vote? The USDP have already won.”

It turned out he was right.

The question is what happens from here. Sure, people are becoming more engaged and involved in the election process – even some who chose not to vote – now that they realise exactly what has taken place. But I’m not sure how that can translate into positive change in the future.
 
This is what I'm talking about.

http://irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=19971

Ethnics Form Federal Army to Topple Junta said:
Five ethnic armed groups have this week set up what they have named as a “federal army” with the aim of defeating the Burmese army and toppling the military regime, a representative of the alliance told The Irrawaddy on Saturday.

After a four-day meeting in Mae Hong Son in northwestern Thailand, a Mon representative confirmed that five ethnic armed groups—the Karen National Union (KNU), the Kachin Independence Organization (KIO), the New Mon State Party (NMSP), the Karenni National Progressive Party (KNPP) and the Chin National Front (CNF)—had agreed to form a political and military alliance.

The political wing of the federal army will be called the “Committee for the Emergence of a Federal Union.”

The representative said that they plan to invite other ethnic armed groups to join the federal army. He said they will also cooperate with democracy activists to build a future federal state in Burma.

The Committee for the Emergence of a Federal Union will be headed by Maj-Gen N'Ban La Aung of the KIO. The deputy chairman of the committee is to be Gen Mutu Say Poe of the KNU, with Nai Hang Thar of the NMSP as general secretary, and Shwe Myo Thant of the KNPP as joint secretary.

Speaking with The Irrawaddy on Saturday, Nai Hang Thar said, “We will select one army general from each of the armed ethnic groups, and those army chiefs will work together to plan military strategy and command attacks against the regime.”

He continued: “We will help each other improve military strength and implement tactics. The KNU has agreed to provide military training for the federal army.”

He said a decision has not yet been reached on where to base the federal army headquarters.

However, another source said he believed that the federal army will base its headquarters in Shan State where it can attain supplies more easily from the United Wa State Army (UWSA), which is the largest ethnic army in Burma with a fighting force of up to 30,000 men. The UWSA is also known to deal in arms.

In preparation for an attack by government troops, each ethnic army will share areas of responsibility with neighboring allies—such as the KNU will do with the NMSP.

The NMSP, the KIO and the UWSA were until recently under a deadline to transfer their battalions into border guard forces (BGFs) under Burmese army command.

A faction of the Democratic Karen Buddhist Army (DKBA) Brigade 5, led by Col Saw Lah Pwe, is the only battalion within the DKBA that has to date rejected outright the BGF order.

Speaking to The Irrawaddy on Friday, Saw Lah Pwe said, “Under this military rule, we [the people of Burma] can barely breathe. We cannot survive. We need to unite to fight together for our survival and for democracy in Burma.”

He said the Burmese authorities have put pressure on his group to give up its territory.

“The Burmese commanders have threatened us and told us to abandon our base and and our territory,” he said. “They said they don’t want to see us in the area and have given their troops a shoot-to-kill order.”

He said that his troops are ready to resist any belligerent action by government forces.

“We told them this is our Karen land, so Karen people must be free to live in it, “ he said. “We are not leaving. No way. If they shoot at us, we will defend ourselves.”

He said that Sunday's general election will bring neither democracy nor civil rights for Burma's ethnic people. Instead, he said, the junta will try to eliminate the ethnic minorities in the wake of the election.

Nai Hang Thar said, “We are not afraid and we are ready to attack them [the junta].”

Some of the ethnic groups, such as the KNU, have been fighting against the Burmese army continously since Burma gained independence from Britain in 1948.
 
http://www.irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=19949

Ethnic Armed Groups in Alliance Talks said:
Leaders of ethnic armed groups are meeting in Mae Hong Son in northwest Thailand to work out strategy and tactics in the event of a post-election attack by Burma's military government that would end the 20-year cease-fire with the ethnic groups. The meeting started on Tuesday, according to sources.

The armed ethnic groups represented at the meeting include the Chin, Kachin, Karen, Karenni, Mon and Shan. Foreign military experts were also reportedly involved.

The ethnic armed leaders are trying to set up a central military alliance, possibly with Nai Hang Thar, the widely trusted secretary of the New Mon State Party (NMSP), as its leader, the sources said.

Apart from military matters, the potential military allies are also discussing how a new strategy aimed at toppling the military regime to replace the former decades-long policy of coexistence under terms of a cease-fire could be presented to the international community and world media.

After the election, ethnic leaders believe the new government will request cease-fire talks with ethnic groups on a one-to-one basis, but the alliance will seek to face the military government as a united front, a source close to participants at the meeting said on condition of anonymity.

The alliance could also decide to present the post-election government with an ultimatum to initiate political reform with a specific deadline or face the possibility of a coordinated attack, he said.

A source close to the NMSP said the US government had been approached regarding the ethnic issues when five US congressmen including Rep Ruppersberger (Democrat) and Rep Rohrabacher (Republican) met leaders of the armed ethnic groups in Thailand on Aug. 4 in Chiang Mai in northern Thailand. The congressmen were on a fact-finding mission regarding the armed ethnic groups along the Thai-Burmese border.

According to an NMSP document received by The Irrawaddy, the ethnic leaders asked the congressmen for military assistance and training to help defend against an expected post-election junta offensive.

A source present at the meeting said, “We told the congressmen that we are not terrorist organizations and that our military struggle is aimed only at protecting our people from falling into the brutal hands of the junta's troops.”

Zipporah Sein, general secretary of the Karen National Union (KNU) said the meeting currently taking place in Mae Hong Son is aimed at increasing military cooperation and assistance among the ethnic groups in preparation for expected armed conflict after the election, but declined to give details saying the meeting has not concluded.

Following the 2008 Constitution that stipulates that there can only be one armed force in one nation—Sunday's election will make the junta-written constitution legitimate—observers say there is little doubt that the junta will go on a military offensive to eliminate the insurgencies on its borders and wipe out the ethnic forces that refused to accept its Border Guard Force (BGF) plan. The plan was to incorporate the ethnic armed forces as BGF within the junta's unified military structure.

Speaking with The Irrawaddy in Panghsang in northern Shan State, an official of United Wa State Army (UWSA) said: “We don’t want war. But we will react if one of our groups is attacked.” With an estimated 30,000 men, the UWSA is the strongest of the ethnic groups that rejected the BGF plan.

“We cannot mention detail but we are preparing a military strategy. We are also watching the election,” the official said.

Meanwhile the UWSA are providing financial assistance to all groups and military equipment to small groups close to their areas that may be targeted in a potential attack, other sources said.

“The tension between the ethnic armed groups and regime is increasing all the time,” said Burmese researcher Aung Thu Nyein, adding that this is presenting a dilemma to both the ethnic armed groups and the Burmese military government.

Sai Lao Hseng, spokesperson of the Shan State Army–South (SSA-S) said whether there will be civil war or a peaceful resolution to their disagreements depended on the new post-election Burmese government.
“We have always been ready to resolve unfinished issues by political means,” he said. “If they are prepared to use peaceful means, we are ready to cooperate.”
 
It is not too difficult to win an election when you effectively ban what is by far the major political party:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Burma

1990 Elections:

National League for Democracy (NLD) 7,943,622 392 58.7 79.7

The National League for Democracy, IPA: [ʔəmjóðá dìmòkəɹèsì ʔəpʰwḛdʑouʔ]) was a Burmese political party founded on 27 September 1988. It was led by Aung San Suu Kyi, who served as General Secretary. On 6 May 2010, the party was disbanded by the ruling military junta after failing to register for the elections slated for November 2010.

National Unity Party (NUP) 2,805,559 10 21.2 2.0

The National Unity Party is a political party in Burma (Myanmar). It was formed by the military junta as well as members of the Burma Socialist Programme Party to take part in the general election of May 27, 1990. The party was defeated by the National League for Democracy. NUP's headquarters are in Bahan Township, Yangon. Its chairman is Htun Yi, a former deputy commander of the armed forces, and its general secretary is U Than Tin.[1]

Shan Nationalities League for Democracy (SNLD) 222,821 23 1.7 4.7
Minor parties and independents 1,606,858 12 12.1 2.4
Arakan feague for Democracy (AfD) 160,783 11 1.2 2.2
Mon National Democratic Front (MNDF) 138,572 5 1.0 1.0
National Democratic Party for Human Rights 128,129 4 1.0 0.8
Chin National feague for Democracy 51,187 3 0.4 0.1
Kachin State National Congress for Democracy 13,994 3 0.1 0.1
Party for National Democracy 72,672 3 0.5 0.1
Union Pa-O National Organisation 35,389 3 0.3 0.1
Democratic Organisation for Kayah National Unity 16,553 2 0.1 -
Kayah State Nationalities League for Democracy 11,664 2 0.1 -
Naga Hills Regional Progressive Party 10,612 2 0.1 -
Ta-ang (Palaung) National League for Democracy 16,553 2 0.1 -
Zomi National Congress (ZNC) 18,638 2 0.1 -
Total valid votes (87.7% of total cast) 13,253,606 492 100.0
 
Formaldehyde said:
It is not too difficult to win an election when you effectively ban what is by far the major political party.

... sure, the NLD itself is banned. But that needn't have stopped it participating under an assumed name. The NFD (an NLD splinter) certainly did with some measure of success. The real reason it didn't compete is two-fold, (1) it didn't want to legitimise the junta (and by proxy its civilian successor) and (2) its an electoral wreck with most of its leaders in prison, its organisation in tatters and without the kind of mass appeal it had in the 90s. But, then again, I don't give a fig about the NLD. It won't achieve anything. (I'm far more interested in the civilian elites making a play for power inside the ruling coalition, it could plausibly be an agent for change; or the Federal Army pushing back hard enough against the junta to potentially topple it or even better force it to the table).

ANYWAYS KNU4LYFE.
 
I can't help but think that you're being overly pessimistic about the NLD. I mean, sure, they aren't what they used to be, and okay, you say they do not have mass appeal anymore, but having an widely internationally supported and well known opposition has got to count for something. The world doesn't care unless Aung San Suu Kyi gets involved.
 
having an widely internationally supported and well known opposition has got to count for something.

That's a liability rather than an asset. It makes it easier for its opponents to claim, with some justification, that it is merely a tool of the Western powers.
 
That's a liability rather than an asset. It makes it easier for its opponents to claim, with some justification, that it is merely a tool of the Western powers.

I would've thought liability as well as an asset would be more accurate than liability rather than an asset. I guess that depends how effective claims of puppetry are relative to actual international support in a tangible form manufactured from said party's status.
 
I would've thought liability as well as an asset would be more accurate than liability rather than an asset.

As far as the party's prospects in Burma itself is concerned, it's not an asset.

I guess that depends how effective claims of puppetry are relative to actual international support in a tangible form manufactured from said party's status.

I'm not quite sure what you mean.
 
If a party can get international support, I would think that the benefits they would derive in terms of assistance from the outside would outweigh the negatives from claims of being a Western puppet. It would make sense at least if all external pressure applied on the military junta did actually benefit the NLD in some way.
 
Camikaze said:
I can't help but think that you're being overly pessimistic about the NLD.

No, I'm probably being overly kind.

Camikaze said:
you say they do not have mass appeal anymore

... let's put it this way. To have participated in the 1990 election you would need to be at least 40, in a country with a median age of only 26.2 years. In addition, the NLD has been moribund at the grass roots since 1990, when it was comprehensibly destroyed as a political party. This would seem to suggest that half of the population hasn't had any interaction with the NLD and the other 'lucky' half hasn't for 20 years. In those circumstances (let alone the whole police state thing), of course it has no mass base.

Camikaze said:
but having an widely internationally supported and well known opposition has got to count for something.

No, not at all. The party leadership has been under arrest for twenty years and most of them were not young men even then. But think about it from a practical standpoint, these people are expected by the West to be able to run a country where they haven't mixed with the people at any level for twenty years. All their contacts in the military, government, business and so forth are dead, retired or have been sidelined. Even the people who ousted them are dead and the guys who ousted them are nearly dead as well. How in the hell are they going to deal with the military, let alone anyone else? They're political dinosaurs, who might one day be trotted out rotting to face a people who haven't seen sight nor sound of them for twenty years. I don't hold any hope for that.

Camikaze said:
The world doesn't care unless Aung San Suu Kyi gets involved.

That's a bad thing you know. She's an issue, but she isn't the issue. In fairness, I think she realises that but what can she do?

Camikaze said:
If a party can get international support, I would think that the benefits they would derive in terms of assistance from the outside would outweigh the negatives from claims of being a Western puppet.

What assistance has the international community provided thus far? For all the sympathy we still have a junta running around...

Camikaze said:
It would make sense at least if all external pressure applied on the military junta did actually benefit the NLD in some way.

I'm not sure that it does... the economic sanctions are probably doing more harm than good.
 
I didn't post the 1990 election results to suggest that the same people would be voting today. I did it to show that the party of the rulers who usurped power has never been popular outside of the people who directly benefit from their acts. This can be clearly seen in the last supposedly free elections where they received only 21% of the vote.

All military juntas are clearly not supported by the vast majority of the people. If they were they would all hold free and open elections instead of seizing power afterwards when their candidates don't get elected. When given an actual choice people typically do not vote for oppression and tyranny over freedom and liberty unless they think they are direct beneficiaries of the inequities, and that they are better off than if a democratically elected government was in power.
 
I don't disagree with you. I'm just suggesting that the lack of a viable opposition party was a major impediment to any alternative outcome. That could change, but I don't see that happening yet.
 
Speak of the devil...
The military authorities in Burma have released the pro-democracy leader, Aung San Suu Kyi.

She has appeared in front of a crowd of her supporters who rushed to her house in Rangoon when nearby barricades were removed by the security forces.

The Nobel Peace Prize winner has been detained for 15 of the past 21 years.

Earlier, Ms Suu Kyi's lawyer warned that she was highly unlikely to accept a conditional release if it excluded her from political activity.

The government has restricted her travel and freedom to associate during previous brief spells of liberty, and demanded she quit politics.

She was originally due to be released from house arrest last year, but a case involving an American who swam across Inya Lake to her home, claiming he was on a mission to save her, prompted the latest detention.

Last Sunday, the political party supported by the military government won the country's first election in 20 years. The ballot was widely condemned.

'Work together'
Since Saturday morning, crowds of people had been waiting anxiously for news of Ms Suu Kyi's fate near her home and the headquarters of her now-banned National League for Democracy (NLD) party. Many wore T-shirts sporting the slogans "We stand with Aung San Suu Kyi".

By late afternoon, a stand-off had developed between armed riot police and several hundred people who had gathered on the other side of the security barricade blocking the road leading to her lakeside home. Some of them later sat down in the road in an act of defiance.

As tensions rose, reports came in at about 1700 (1030 GMT) that the security forces had started removing the barricade.

Soon after, official cars were seen entering the compound, and unnamed officials then said that the release order had been read to Ms Suu Kyi.

Hundreds of people then surged forward and rushed towards her home to greet her.

Ms Suu Kyi then appeared on a platform at the gate of her compound, wearing a traditional lilac dress. The crowd chanted, cheered and sang the national anthem.

"There is a time to be quiet and a time to talk. People must work in unison. Only then can we achieve our goal," she told the crowd.

She then returned inside her home along with senior NLD officials.

Her lawyer, Nyan Win, earlier said that if she was freed without conditions, she would meet with the NLD's central committee, members of the media and the public once she was freed.

He noted that after earlier detentions, she always visited the Shwedagon pagoda, one of the most sacred sites in Burma.

Ms Suu Kyi will address her supporters at the NLD's headquarters at noon Saturday, party officials said.

UK Prime Minister David Cameron said her release had been "long overdue", describing her detention had been a "travesty".

"Aung San Suu Kyi is an inspiration for all of us who believe in freedom of speech, democracy and human rights."

Elections criticised
The decision by Burma's ruling generals to release Ms Suu Kyi follows the elections on Sunday.

Earlier this week, state media announced that partial results showed that the biggest military-backed party, the Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP), had secured a majority in both houses of parliament.

The USDP had won 190 of the 219 seats so far declared in the 330-seat lower House of Representatives, and 95 of 107 seats in the 168-seat upper House of Nationalities, the reports said.

Those elected included the leader of the USDP, Prime Minister Thein Sein, who retired from the military as a general in April to stand.

The junta has said the election marks the transition from military rule to a civilian democracy, but the opposition, many Western governments and human rights groups have said the election was neither free nor fair.

The NLD - which won the last election in 1990 but was never allowed to take power - was ordered to dissolve after refusing to take part.

A quarter of seats in the two new chambers of parliament will be reserved for the military. Any constitutional change will require a majority of more than 75% - meaning that the military will retain a casting vote.

So, a good way to placate the West after the elections?
 
Its a fairly savvy move, what with the election locking up the political process for 3 (?) years. :dunno:

Good luck to her. She's going to need it.
 
What do you think the chances of Suu Kyi remaining free are? I guess this could be permanent freedom, if the NLD in general and Suu Kyi in particular are not seen as a big enough threat to warrant the negative exposure locking her up again would give the Burmese government.
 
Camikaze said:
What do you think the chances of Suu Kyi remaining free are?

No idea. It will depend on what the terms and conditions of her release are.

Camikaze said:
I guess this could be permanent freedom, if the NLD in general and Suu Kyi in particular are not seen as a big enough threat to warrant the negative exposure locking her up again would give the Burmese government.

I wouldn't use permanent. But I think she's safe in the middle term - probably till the next election cycle - at least. It will all depend on what kind of threat she can pose to the regime in that time. But I don't think she will get locked up again. She's old. Her party is moribund. The election has already been held. The constitution in place leaves most of the power in the hands of the military. The present government also has all the resources of government to use between now and then. :dunno:
 
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...kyi-before-euphoria-fades-20101115-17ub5.html

South-east Asia needs to back Suu Kyi before euphoria fades said:
Only a united international response can help bring democracy to Burma.

Burma's political drama has tended to follow a well-worn script. In this story, a clique of military dictators with a draconian national security mentality face off against Aung San Suu Kyi, the Nobel peace laureate who spearheads a popular democracy movement.

At certain moments, many of us, particularly in Western democracies, stand to applaud the courage and principled struggle of Suu Kyi and Burma's countless other democrats. Soon after the applause fades we tend to hear, in muted terms, of the crackdowns, imprisonments and heartaches that follow. Usually, our attention moves on and Burma languishes without the full-bore scrutiny its military dictatorship deserves.
Advertisement: Story continues below

When Suu Kyi was released at the weekend, an understandable wave of elation reverberated around the world. Her long-awaited freedom was tentatively greeted by an optimism that the time had come to write a new chapter in Burma's historic struggle for democratic renewal.

Many hope that Suu Kyi is destined to make history. Her father, Burma's enduring national hero, Aung San, was assassinated in 1947 just months before the country gained independence from Britain. Suu Kyi then spent many years abroad, where she lived in relative anonymity, as her country spiralled into dictatorship.

That anonymity vanished in 1988 when, as Aung San's daughter, she emerged to lead a nationwide pro-democracy movement.

Suu Kyi's commitment to democratic goals has seen her spend 15 of the past 21 years locked up. Weathering heartbreaking personal tragedies, she has steadfastly refused to compromise on the need for free and democratic political participation.

For the world and for her own people, she has maintained her defiance in the face of profound provocation and personal loss. But now that she has been released from house arrest, some serious challenges loom.

First, she will need rapid orientation to a new domestic political and social landscape. While the tyranny of Burma's military dictatorship has not faltered, the country has still changed significantly since she was last able to travel widely in 2003. Crucially, the ability of the country's military leadership to fortify themselves with revenues from foreign-funded natural resource projects has changed some of the economic equations.

Second, history suggests that international attention wanes quickly and Suu Kyi may not enjoy the luxury of a slow re-emergence.

Many hope that Burma's democrats can promptly outmanoeuvre their military rulers and catalyse a new era of national politics.

The optimists also anticipate that her gravitas and unique personal story can help knit together the country's disparate ethnic groups. Suu Kyi's father is often held up as the country's last great unifier and, as the heir to his federalist tendencies, she carries the hopes of many who live in the country's ethnic minority areas.

Third, Suu Kyi now faces a military dictatorship that has attempted to cultivate its own modicum of regional legitimacy through this month's elections. Among South-East Asian nations, and also for the leaders of key partners such as China, the elections were considered a respectable step towards greater democracy.

But could an international coalition firmly support Suu Kyi in pushing Burma's military leadership into dialogue and compromise?

Every previous effort to generate a consensus for genuinely democratic politics has failed. Any chance of success would require the active leadership of countries such as Thailand and Singapore, and it would obviously benefit from any support that the Chinese and Indian governments could muster.

Long-lasting and positive change in Burma will only come by fully engaging with the real political and economic interests of Burma's neighbours. Countries such as Australia can support this process by emphasising the need to cultivate a wider international consensus.

Burma's senior military leaders will have anticipated the elation among Westerners that has followed Suu Kyi's release. They will also expect that within days or weeks our attention will dissipate, so that they can return to governing the country with relative impunity and without daily scrutiny from the international media.

But what have they failed to anticipate? Could they prove to be blindsided by a regional effort, backed by South-East Asian voices, to support a genuinely free democratic process at this pivotal moment? The tantalising possibility of regional leaders seeking to distance themselves from the dictatorship is worth close consideration. They have been habitually circumspect in their criticism of Burma's dictatorship but, while there are few indications that a radical change of tone is imminent, they are the powers best positioned to send a strong message about their shared commitment to democratic institutions.

Leaders from Thailand and Indonesia have already welcomed Suu Kyi's release. Her dignified resistance would benefit from the region's full and unflinching support as she seeks any opportunity to change Burma for the better.

Nicholas Farrelly is a South-East Asia specialist in the College of Asia and the Pacific at the Australian National University. He wrote his doctoral thesis at Oxford University on politics in Burma.

Well I'm no longer hopeful. :(
 
The last paragraph of the article seems kinda promising. I wouldn't have thought though that any pro-democracy support from SE Asian nations would actually be too vocal (I wonder what Thailand and Indonesia have actually said in relation to Suu Kyi's release), though. "Yay, she was released" seems most likely to be the full extent of it. Tangible assistance and a concerted effort to push for democracy seem like fat chances.
 
Back
Top Bottom