Special Report Burma'sGenerals Reelect Themselves
By Doug Bandowon 11.8.10 @ 6:08AM Burma's agony continues. OnSunday the military dictatorship held a rigged election to cloak itself incivilian garb. The people of Burma will continue to suffer under one of theworst governments on earth. Gen. Ne Win seized power in1962. Nearly a half century later the country is ruled by a junta headed byGen. Than Shwe. The military's crimes are many. It has imposed a corrupt andbrutal dictatorship; conducted a genocidal war against dissident ethnic groups;suppressed civil and political liberties; kept the country desperately poor;and enriched well-connected allies at public expense. The government evenimpeded international assistance after devastating Cyclone Nargis in2008. The regime has repeatedlyattempted to rebrand itself. For instance, the junta once called itself theState Law and Order Restoration Council, SLORC, but shifted to the State Peaceand Development Council. Alas, the only peace the SPDC believes in is of thegrave and the only development it supports is of junta members' bank accounts.The generals occasionally ousted and imprisoned each other. In 1990 the junta foolishly heldan election. Like the Nicaraguan Sandinistas and Polish Communists, who alsocalled free ballots, the Burmese military overestimated its popular support.The Burmese people decisively rejected the regime, overwhelmingly voting forNobel Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi and the National League for Democracy. So thegenerals voided the result, suppressed the NLD, and quarantined Suu Kyi,subjecting her to house arrest for 15 of the last 21 years. There has been no mellowing overthe years. In 2003 the regime promised a "roadmap todiscipline-flourishing democracy," which emphasized discipline overdemocracy. The SPDC ruthlessly suppressed protests led by Buddhist monks in2007. The following year the junta stuffed ballot boxes in a referendum on itsauthoritarian constitution, drafted without popular input. The generalsroutinely harassed Suu Kyi and sentenced many of her supporters to long prisonterms. The regime reached ceasefire agreements with a number of rebelliousethnic groups, but since then has begun demanding that the forces disarm, anonstarter for people who have suffered from unlimited military barbarity fordecades. The junta's latest strategy isanother election, for a two-house national parliament and 14 state and regionalassemblies. However, this ballot was rigged from the start to prevent anychance of the opposition triumphing. First, there was no independent electioncommission and no foreign observers were allowed. No electioneering, let alongcriticism of the government was permitted. The media is largely controlled bythe government; even nominally private publications are censored. So aresermons by monks. The cost of registering to run alone exceeded the per capitaGDP. Elaine Pearson, deputy Asia director for Human Rights Watch, complained:the vote was "being conducted in a climate of fear, intimidation, andresignation." Second, some 2000 imprisoneddemocracy activists, including Suu Kyi and many other NLD members, were deemedineligible to run. Political parties were required to expel members with"criminal" records, including for political offenses, to contest theballot. Thus, the NLD, the nation's onlylegitimate governing force, refused to participate. The generals then dissolvedthe party (along with nine others). NLD activists responded by urging aboycott. The regime threatened to jail them while promising developmentprojects to neighborhoods where residents marked their ballots ahead of time.The government also barred people from participating in many eastern ethnicareas, while in others rebellious groups refused to participate. Third, the regime turnedmilitary apparatchiks into civilian candidates. Through the misnamed UnitedSolidarity and Development Party the generals fielded candidates to contest all1,163 offices at stake. The equally misnamed National Unity Party, representingNe Win, the original dictator who was ousted in 1988, put up 999 candidates.Richard Horsey, a former UN official, contended that victories by some of thelatter would demonstrate that the military is not monolithic, but the NUP nomore represents the Burmese people does than the USDP. Both military factionsare paranoid, xenophobic, and despotic. In contrast, the NationalDemocratic Force, a rump group of former NLD-activists, only contested 163seats. A number of other small parties, including several ethnic-basedorganizations, ran a few candidates. A number of independents also stood foroffice. Still, Burma's foreign minister, Nyan Win, claimed: "Such a largeparticipation made it crystal clear that the elections become virtuallyinclusive." Fourth, parties were required toaffirm support for the 2008 constitution imposed by the SPDC. That documentreserves one-fourth of the lower house and one-third of the upper house to themilitary, allows the "civilian" president to turn power over to themilitary, creates a National Defense and Security Council, and permits themilitary-controlled Union Election Commission to dismiss legislators for"misbehavior." Authority will not betransferred. The generals will remain in charge. The Burmese people are notfooled. Ashin Issariya, a founding member of the All Burma Monks Alliance,observed: "It will be the same faces and the same system that we have beenliving with for decades. The name 'elections' does not change anything forus." Long-time NLD activist Win Tin said the election "will just helpthe military get what they want -- to rule for a century or more." Dot LayMu of the Karen National Union warned: the generals are using the poll to"consolidate and prolong" their control. The junta's objective is anotherimage makeover. Today the SPDC is widely reviled around the world and subjectto U.S. and European sanctions. The generals hope to gain greater internationalacceptance. The international response tothe junta has been divided. The U.S. and Europe have campaigned against theregime, but Burma's neighbors have refused to join in. China supports thegenerals irrespective of how many people they kill. India is economicallyactive in Burma and, along with Malaysia and Singapore, trains SPDC militaryofficers. Other countries, including Thailand, have refused to do more thanapply limited pressure, valuing Burma's natural resources more than Burmese humanrights. Now Asian governments arelauding the poll while Western governments are unsure how to respond. Someanalysts argue that even a flawed election presages possible politicalliberalization. Daron Acemoglu and James A.Robinson of MIT and Harvard, respectively, wrote: "History shows thatgradual, half-hearted reforms of this sort are exactly how many autocraciessuccessfully transition to democracy." However, the examples they cite areless than convincing. Great Britain and early America were republics whichdistrusted direct democracy, not dictatorships. Chile immunized participants inthe military regime, but returned power to an elected civilian government.Taiwan allowed the established though previously outlawed opposition party tocontest newly free elections. Burma matches none of these. Egypt may be closer,but that nation remains unfree a half century after Col. Abdul Nasser became acivilian. Allowing a genuinely free votefor a civilian government with some independent powers even while the militarymaintains control over security agencies might permit a gradual evolution to amore liberal system. But allowing a few dissident civilians to assume powerlesspositions in a system controlled by the same authoritarian apparatchiks, only wearingsuits rather than uniforms, is unlikely to yield any noticeable difference ingovernance. Some analysts posit that theprocess may empower younger military men. Younger does not necessarily meanreformer, however. Observed journalist Bertil Lintner, "Lower andmiddle-ranking army officers remain immensely loyal to the leadership, knowingfull well that they can only rise to prominent and privileged positions byshowing that they are even more hardline than their superiors." Anyway,the aging process guarantees personnel turnover. The faux elections addnothing. So too when it comes to dreams of economic liberalization andgovernment transparency: such policies will change only if the military wantsthem to change, not as a result of the vote. If Suu Kyi is released after herhouse arrest formally expires on Nov. 13 -- and she is allowed to resume activepolitical activities, along with other democratic activists -- then there mightbe at least a little hope for a little change. But if most of those who havebeen fighting for liberty remain imprisoned, opposition political activityremains proscribed, and criticism of the government remains prohibited, theneven Suu Kyi's release, though welcome, would signal no change. Still, Lex Rieffel and David I.Steinberg, of the Brookings Institution and Georgetown University respectively,argued that "With smart, nuanced policies, however, the U.S. and otherWestern countries could help to ensure that the November election is a majorstep toward a democratic and prosperous Burma." What policies they do notsay. Since the ballot changes nothing substantive, it is hard to imaginepolicies which could to turn the vote into a positive step forward. The fact that the faux electionoffers no prospect of change doesn't mean the West should maintain its policyof isolation and sanctions. This strategy has manifestly failed. Today's onlywinner is China, which has achieved disproportionate influence in Rangoon. Attempting to reinforceisolation and sanctions is a dead-end. For instance, the administration is nowpushing for a UN-sponsored commission to investigate Burma for war crimes. It'sa fine idea, but one that will never get past Beijing in the Security Council.Given the prevalence of human rights abusers in the international body, GeneralAssembly or Human Rights Council vote is no more likely. It is time to move in theopposite direction. Kurt Campbell, AssistantSecretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, said the ballot"will be without international legitimacy" but called for"dialogue" as "the best way forward" among difficultoptions. He hopes for the rise of new players and structures, but that's moredream than reality. The poll alone is no reason by itself to reverse policy.The U.S. should not aid the junta's attempt to disguise its malign character.Brutal authoritarians were in control on November 6, before the vote. Brutalauthoritarians remain in control on November 8, after the vote. After a decent interval,however, Washington should consult with Europeans and leading Asian states toforge a united strategy to press Burma for reform. The U.S. government needs torecognize that its ability to influence events in Rangoon is limited. Broaderinternational support, especially in Southeast Asia, is required for any hopeof progress. No policy offers much likelihoodof success. But promising to eschew attempts at coercive regime change whileoffering rewards for political liberalization may provide the best, if stillnot a good, strategy to promote real change. For instance, Jared Genser ofFreedom Now argued: "It is only through a facilitated process oftripartite dialogue among the junta, Suu Kyi and the National League forDemocracy and the country's disparate ethnic groups that any real reconciliationand progress toward democracy will be made." Burma poses one of the world'sgreatest humanitarian challenges. The latest "election" changesnothing. The Obama administration should treat the new "civilian"government no different than the old military regime. But Washingtonnevertheless should acknowledge the failure of its past democratizationefforts, and look for a new way forward. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Cambodia Discussion (CAMDISC) - www.cambodia.org" group. This is an unmoderated forum. Please refrain from using foul language. Thank you for your understanding. Peace among us and in Cambodia. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/camdisc Learn more - http://www.cambodia.org
