Reading and viewing Western print and satellite TV and their Southeast counterparts recently, it’s hard to believe that there is deep understanding about the historical, cultural and economic context of what these media call present day Myanmar and Pakistan.
The staple line of argument among liberal media circles in the West is that the “military junta” or “military regime” in Myanmar and Pakistan need to be changed into liberal democracies along the lines of what politicians, legislators and media pundits in America and Britain seemed to be obsessed with. The illusion that Aung San Suu Kyi, Benazir Bhutto and/or Nawaz Sharif and their coterie of politicos/lawyers are able to devise a alternative, competent and unifying “democratic”political system remains a strong and, at the same time, naive and dangerous one.
Some 8 years ago, at the residence of the British ambassador in Jakarta, I was invited to meet for tea with Michael Aris, husband of Aung San Suu Kyi. I asked him pointedly whether the National League for Democracy which his wife headed was really a viable political organization that could galvanise a sense of national purpose among Myanmar’s civic society, particularly among Shans, Karens, Kachens and other minorities. His answer was so carefully guarded that I did not press the point. I had earlier remarked to him that (then) Vice President Megawati Soekarnoputri was still grappling with forging unity within her PDIP party. In other words, for the NLD and PDIP there were limits to riding on the on the charisma of Aung San and Soekarno, to which both Syuu Kyi’s and Megawat relied upon for their influence and legitimacy.
Aris and I both agreed that presenting a viable political alternative to the military would have to be one of the priorities of all Aung San Suu Kyi’s followers within Myanmar as well as self exciled Myanmarese residing in Thailand, Western Europe and North America. However powerful the military in its power grip , social and economic changes were taking place within the country which required adjustment on the part of the military. Deep down, Myanmar was undergoing vast economic and political changes similar to what took place during the final 10 years of President Soehartos’s rule in Indonesia. The key issue was defining the scope and pace of change engaging with the military.
In Indonesia, the political structure of the ruling Golkar, the military and the bureaucracy established in the 1970s and mid 1980s had served its purpose of providing stability but since the 1990s had felt the need to gradually adjust and adapt. As with Indonesia in the 1990s, Myanmar post 2000 was changing fast, and the Myanmar military leadership felt it had to adjust to the realities of Myanmar’s growing political and economic interaction with the outside world, not just with its ASEAN co-member states. In fact, a hybrid political transitional arrangement was in the cards since late mid 1990s, recognising the need on both sides to define how much change and how much continuity would be mutually agreeable and realistically feasible. The unsaid transition period would be “a generation”, which means at least 15-20 years.
Similarly with Pakistan. General Musharraf may have outlived his legitimacy and political hold as leader of a “front-line state” in the West’s war against terrorism. But it is important to recall that when he came to power in October 1999, the Pakistani political public had been fed up with the constant gibbering, grab and greed politics of the Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif governments of the previous eight years. Not to speak of the associated role of “the infamous 22 families” which for long controlled the levers of political and economic power since Pakistan’s independence. Just as in Indonesia and elsewhere in Southeast Asia, contending ruling civil and military elites have always been beholden to the 3 C’s (Chinese Crony Conglomerates) dispensing business and monetary favours in return for political recognition and protection.
The real issue, then, is: do the civilian leaders and their fast-talking lawyers, NGO types and politicians in Myanmar and Pakistan have a credible and presentable alternative to military dominance? Have they also realised that a hybrid “military-civilian transitional system” is the true and only viable one, until the much vaunted “institution building”__political, economic, social__ underpins a truly functioning and sustainable democracy based on a committed civilian based middle class?
BBC World TV is airing a series on “Why Democracy?” based on a survey in several countries across the world it conducted last August. I suspect that it will contain the underlying taxonomy of what the often insufferably condescending British like to claim as Anglo Saxon superiority as pioneers of modern political and parliamentary democracy. It will make little note of the historical, cultural and economic backdrop of how democracies are defined, applied and reinterpreted in terms of each country’s historical cultural and economic context. But then the BBC, The British Council and the English language itself, is the last best hope of what Churchill called the need to capture “the empires of the mind” in the wake of Britain’s imperial decline.
More sanity is called for about the future prospects of graduated political and economic democracy in Mmyanmar and Pakistan. Instant democracy___openness, free press, rule of law, transparency and other accountability features____are fine for those who can afford it. But for those who still live in despair and desperation, it would be naïve and dangerous to think that feisting Western style democracy would bring about instant solutions on the ground. Witness the current state of the “democracy project” in Iraq and Afganistan.
Routinization of charisma gitu ya Pak? Bahkan Webber juga tidak menyebutkan mengenai pewarisan karisma kan?
Kalo mrk (Megawati, ASSK, Benazir Bhutto) hanya bermodal nama almarhum ayah mrk untuk maju di panggung politik, kok sepertinya akan lebih menyedihkan nasibnya daripada ayah mereka. Tapi ASSK dan NLD kan juga jadi pemenang sah pemilu yang kemudian dibatalkan sepihak oleh rejim militer yang ada. So, at least, ASSK and NLD have the legitimacy.
#1 Salute, you the 1st civilians minister who lead a department which is identically with millitary in Indonesia.
#2 Did you agree that most Junta Government is bad for the democracy?
# 3 Since the Junta takeover the legal government at Myanmar, do the democracy in there was died?
#4 Sorry if my english is bad, i’m an Indonesian…
>Instant democracy___openness, free press, rule of law, transparency and other accountability features____are fine for those who can afford it. But for those who still live in despair and desperation, it would be naïve and dangerous to think that feisting Western style democracy would bring about instant solutions on the ground.
According to some estimates, half of Indonesia’s population live on less than US$2/day. In parts of Eastern Indonesia, poverty is widespread. Yet Indonesia IS a democracy, and threw off the shackles of military rule as a result of the financial crisis. Poverty does not mean that democratic political systems can’t work. Indonesia is evidence of that. All in all, you do, in my opinion, a disservice to the people of Myanmar to suggest that they are not ready for democracy because they are “too poor”. Regards.
With all due respect, I think you overestimate the competency of the current Myanmarese government. Lee Kuan Yew put his finger on it in his own uncharitable characterization of the junta.
It is difficult to imagine how a government could do worse in managing the economy, integrity and sovereignty of the country. It has been only through brute force and the material support of its friends abroad that the regime has created any sense of stability. And still, it is a very unstable situation judging by refugee flows alone. At the same time, by most accounts, it is giving up large swaths of its territory to effective Chinese control.
junta militer atau pemimpin yang dilandasi oleh warisan kharismetik pada dasarnya tidak sesuai untuk membangun demokrasi, karena seorang pemimipin negara yang dipilih hanya karena faktor kharismatik apalagi yang didapat dari keturunan, tidak akan mendewasakan masyarakat, bahkan pada beberapa kasus tertentu kepemimpinan mereka akan berbeda jauh dari para pendahulunya seperti kasus indira gandi yang berubah menjadi otoriter jauh dari garis kepemimpinan yang dilakukan oleh nehru. jadi pemimpin yang dipilih bukan atas dasar logika rasional tidak jauh beda dengan junta militer yang satu mengandalkan power militer yang lain menggunakan figur yang menipu…
Saya sendiri “lelah” dan kian “lelah” hidup di alam demokrasi-nya Indonesia. Saya yakin, di Myanmar & Pakistan pun demikian. Banyak rakyat yang kian lelah.
Statement yang Anda lontarkan ke Om Rumsfeld ketika lawatannya ke Indonesia 2006 lalu Benar, Prof. Itu setidaknya menggelitik “orang yang serba cekatan” di Gedung Putih & Kongres sana.
Saatnya mereka menggunakan soft-power (ilmu pengetahuan, riset, teknologi, dsb.) guna membantu negara dunia ketiga. Ini justru mencekik kita semua.
i strongly agree on this article.
if we analyze more deeply, then we may find that there were and are some foreign interest involved in these situation.
some may say that this is only a conspiracy theory.
but that is why i agree w/ the steps taken by indonesia and the rest of ASEAN regarding the issue of myanmar.
there are many aspects we should think of.
for example when we look at myanmar’s history, looks like they’re not ready yet for a western type of democracy.
besides, oppressed party doesn’t always mean the solution. and we have to keep in mind that the suu kyi’s party was chosen some years ago. society change, and so does the party.
i just think that indonesia should really be an example for the two nations to mirror at so they could make better decision, rather than indonesia’s rushy ones.
It is an excellent point that democracy by itself will not provide freedom and prosperity. Those latter attributes will only (as in fact suggested in this article) develop if the government is free of “crony capitalism” (or I would add “crony socialism”). Perhaps governments of ALL kinds INCLUDING young democracies are prone to capture by cronies, and the best solution is
1- a relentless battle to reduce the sheer size of government OR
2- the imposition of policies which take away the unfair advantages of entrenched cronies (such as barriers to trade, reduced bureaucracy and regulation)and instead promote competition especially from those not politically powerful.
Unfortunately all too often oil income serves to increase the size of government at the expense of strengthening competitive forces within the private sector. If only this wealth could be used to create mass private property ownership, and and be directed straight to citizens without being filtered by the peoples’ representatives.
In my opinion, this article want to imply that democracy needs a fertile soil so that it can grow just like what it should be (to be more focus, Western type of democracy). But let see from the back side, beyond or before this hypothesis is formulated. Regarding that not all country has the proper base for democracy, it can lead us to the thought of the best political system for certain society. It might raise a question, from the very grounded base, is it democracy that certain society need?
I have the same question and doubt about democracy or so called “democratic system” as well. I think democracy its not an universal value. Democracy still a thesis. But there are two important values that are respected by democracy : freedom of expression and human right. These values are important for the maturity of a society, to the mental development of their citizen. What can you expect from a nations who treat their citizen like a slave. where one can not say anything, ask anything or do anything based on their beliefs? The question is: Whether military regime allow those important values to exist? the answer fortunately, no. Military belittle role of the citizen. weapon will define everything.
second question is: is there any system other than democracy provide the possibility of those values to grow? Yes, I guess, if we are willing to explore values around us, i think we can. Every country will have their original system if they try that respect freedom of expression and human right, and military regime definitely not an answer.
i defenitely agreed with your opinion, democracy is only a way to welfare state but is not going to succeed if the people itself, culturally, have not prepare about the impact especially the bad one. i think the govt and opponent should realize that citizen state needs a real guidance to make their life to be much more comfortable and much worthed so its value will bring prosperity. Power problems always a problem in state (conflict), it is the natural political law.
Democracy Project in Iran and Afganistan a clear invasion on shadow democracy.
Saat ini terjadi resesi di USA “Negara Polisi Demokrasi”, pengaruhnya mulai terasa di Indonesia. Stabilitas hasil Pemilu AS untuk 5 tahun ini masih tidak bisa diprediksi, apakah kebijakan Bush dan investor senjata masih mempengaruhi kebijakan pemerintah baru.
Beberapa butir menurut hemat saya dapat dilakukan:
1. Peningkatan keamanan tambang emas dan penyimpanan emas, akan berguna untuk transaksi disaat darurat dengan Negara Serumpun dan Timur Tengah.
2. Peningkatan keamanan sumber air, reservoir air, bendungan untuk persiapan musim kemarau Juni, Juli, dan Agustus.
3. Pemilihan dan peningkatan keamanan sumber minyak dan penyimpanan minyak bumi sebagai modal untuk transportasi, industri, dan mesin perang di garis pertahanan.
4. Pemilihan dan peningkatan keamanan sumber gas dan penyimpanan gas untuk transportasi dan industri.
Demokrasi bila perut lapar hanya demokrasi mencari makan siang, siap dibayar untuk makan siang. Demokrasi kemashlahatan penuh pertimbangan lebih baik dilakukan dengan orang yang telah makmur, mapan. Pertimbangan mudharat dan mashlahat untuk jangka pendek dan jangka panjang dapat dilakukan oleh orang berilmu dan berpengalaman.
Semua orang layak didengarkan pendapatnya, tidak semua orang layak didengarkan pertimbangannya, tidak semua orang layak duduk di majelis.
Wallahu Alam B.
Wass.Wr.Wb.
A U G I
@augi
“Semua orang layak didengarkan pendapatnya, tidak semua orang layak didengarkan pertimbangannya, tidak semua orang layak duduk di majelis.”
Mungkin lebih baik jadi:
Semua orang layak didengarkan pendapatnya, Semua orang layak didengarkan pertimbangannya, banyak anggota majelis tidak layak duduk di majelis.
I think the issue is not whether Burma is ready for democracy. They had a free election and Syu Kyi’s party NLD won it. It was the military, without the people’s mandate, took over the election’s result. Now, the position for Burma is to implement the people’s vote either by installing the government who won the previous election or to make a re-election to know the current people’s aspiration. So, let the Burmese have a say, not only the elites.
Nevertheless, I do agree with your point that democracy is not only what the west preaches. Democracy should be applied with regards to differences on the level of development, cultures, etc., as long as the system serves the basic human freedom.
Dear Minister,
I respectfully disagree with you on your views on Myanmar. Although NLD may not be a viable force to lead the country, it will be much better than the present regime in power. What people in ASEAN who advocates and shields the regime from criticism lacked the understanding of organization sturctures of Myanmar’s bureaucracy. Since SPDC started reorganizing the military in order to secure its grip, it purged hundreds of unqualified mid-rank soldiers and offered them high level positions in civilian departments. They lacked education, knowledge, and even common sense to lead the departments. Without the income from recently discovered gas fields, SPDC is not even viable this far. Systemetical crushing of civilian orders has crippled Myanmar’s bureaucracy and disabled any organization other than military to lead. But if we let them continue, the country will be worse than those in third world Africa countries. I am not familiar with Golkar’s structure in late 70s and 80s, but one thing I am sure is that its rank and file are much more educated and have visions.
Good morning Sir,
The vital points in democracy are its system and values. I think that everyone accepted the values of democracy that universaly can be incorporated to every nations national values. But the problems is about the system. In this matters, I guessed that Myanmar will have different experience from other country, including from Indonesia, because the democratic system should be applied with realities in national contexs, such as the cultures and etc. From this perspective, I really agree that instant solution for every country are differ from another. But we should not forget that “chances” are NLD or Myanmar need right now.