Make Burma 'ungovernable'-MIZZIMA

http://www.mizzima.com/edop/commentary/1174-make-burma-ungovernable-.html

by Salai Za Ceu Lian
Wednesday, 22 October 2008 17:17

The prospect of Burma transforming into a democratic state from totalitarian rule seems to be diminishing, as the junta gears up to implement their own seven-step roadmap to so-called 'disciplined democracy'.

The fact that the regime is hell-bent on its own roadmap is clearly indicative of the considerable weakness of the democratic opposition of Burma as a whole. For the last 18 years, since Burma's 1990 general election, the military junta has shown no real sign of flexibility and willingness to find a negotiated settlement to the country's long crisis concerning the democratic opposition. As long as the junta sees no potential threat to their power from the opposition, no one should be under any illusion that the military regime will actually hand over power or make a concerted effort to compromise.

It should be understood that the junta's leadership will try to cling to power at all costs. This is a given. While safeguarding against opposition forces, the regime will neither initiate nor support a genuine democratic reform effort unless their power is threatened. Only if there is enormous and irresistible pressure, will the repressive regime be open to negotiating with the democratic opposition. The sad truth is that a transition to democracy for an authoritarian country does not come without enormous cost and sacrifice.

Drawing lessons from countries having gone through such transitions, the first step towards democracy often begins with a crisis caused by the authoritarian regime, which degenerates into a peoples' uprising, followed by mass riots and a nationwide protest against the ruling government which eventually forces dictators in power to relinquish their rule. We have had more than our fair share of such crises and uprisings in Burma, yet the regime continuously consolidates its power. It's become clear that without concerted and persistent efforts to resist and discredit the military junta - especially from the inside - the people's demand of democratic reform seems impossible.


Take the case of South Africa, where the xenophobic National Party governed the country from 1948 to 1994. Despite the apartheid regime's oppression of the opposition, the democratic movement relentlessly tried to create a crisis with the goal of making the country 'ungovernable'.

In time, the democratic movement propelled the government to negotiate with the opposition. Even after the main opposition force - the African National Congress - was banned, the opposition managed to organize a dramatic series of events, including the student uprising in 1976; an anti-apartheid campaign that ground down the South African economy; and most importantly, the continued efforts of the United Democratic Front (UDF) in destabilizing the country in order to achieve their goal of making South Africa 'ungovernable'. Meanwhile, the apartheid regime's heavy-handed military strategy failed, only fueling the opposition movement.

Having seen the failure of oppressive military strategy in trying to contain and eliminate the opposition's campaign, South African President F.W de Klerk had no choice but to install a legitimate government by sharing power with opposition leaders when he assumed office in 1989. Through this power-sharing negotiation, the eventual success of the democratic movement was realized in 1994.

In retrospect, the success of the democratic movement in South Africa could not have been possible without the persistent and courageous efforts of the United Democratic Front, the front that led South African peoples from all walks of life to join their movement against the oppressive apartheid regime. Crucially, the UDF nation-wide movement was initiated and led by prominent leaders of the UDF such as Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Reverend Alan Boesak, while African National Congress leader Nelson Mandela remained imprisoned.

The South African example demonstrates that democratic forces can be effective despite the fact that an authoritarian regime will do whatever it can to stay in power even to the extent that it will employ military force to suppress the opposition. In the case of South Africa, democratic forces from not only within the country but also in exile contributed toward the movement's eventual success. Both locals and expatriates employed a variety of means to discredit the apartheid regime. In 1994, their efforts forced an end to four-decades of apartheid rule.

When this lesson is applied to Burma, no one would dispute the fact that Burmese citizens from all walks of life have done their part to protest repressive military rule. Yes, thousands of peaceful demonstrators have already died in cold blood. Sadly, despite all the sacrifices they have made for our country, the just cause for which they have fought has not been realized. Again and again, sporadic and occasional uprisings against the Burmese military junta have proven that genuine democratic reform is unachievable without the persistent and coordinated efforts of a nationwide people's movement

While Daw Aung San Suu Kyi remains crippled in a similar way to that of Nelson Mandela on Robben Island, it is unfortunate that other main opposition leaders in Burma today cannot provide overall strategic and organizational leadership. For the last 18 years, the main opposition leaders inside Burma – including most MPs elected in 1990 – have done nothing more effective than issuing statements. One can't help but wonder, is that what they were elected for?

When the people of Burma gave them a mandate to govern in 1990, they did so in full belief that those elected representatives would responsibly and courageously stand up to serve the national interest of the country and protect them against the authoritarian rules of the military dictatorship. It is unfortunate that none of their expectations have been met. Given that the opposition leadership has been thrown into total disarray at this point in our history, it is unimaginable that Burma will have competent and dedicated opposition leadership equivalent to that of the UDF. That said, we must now strive to 'make Burma ungovernable' until the junta is forced to cede to the demands of the people and reinstall civilian rule.

The task is ours for the taking. While Daw Suu and some political figures are under house arrest and in jail, it is paramount that those who have been elected in 1990 take charge of leading the movement, particularly a 'people's power movement'. They must do so by relentlessly organizing a persistent nationwide movement through the instigation of civil disobedience against the military regime. As a grand strategy, when leading the opposition movement, they should be offensive rather than defensive and proactive rather than reactive in discrediting Burma's illegitimate rulers. More important than ever before, it is necessary that the democratic opposition should devote resources, both human and material, towards strengthening the movement inside Burma. The fight for democracy in Burma must be vigorously carried on, not just because it is possible, but because it is necessary.