Kyaw Win's Papers + Kyaw Win's Public Lecture Photos

Win

1

WHAT MATTER MOST IN BURMA POLITICS CURRENT SITUATION I. At this juncture – 1.

The main opposition group, the National League for Democracy (NLD) is facing a deadly deadlock. If they want to survive legally, they have no alternatives except participating in 2010 election by the Military Junta.

2.

The Junta is also facing a dilemma. The legitimacy of their proposed 2010 election depends on the participation of opposition groups, especially NLD. However, whether NLD participates or not, they seen to determine to carry on their own roadmap. So it can be said that their problem is not strategic, just moral. In politics, moral is usually inferior to strategic needs.

3.

The west-driven international support has reached its limit. Beyond this limit, there may be only one way, Neo-con model, which is proved unworkable in Iraq War.

Whether we like above situation or not, it is reality. Politics is a game based on reality. II.

HISTORICAL FEATURES

Why did Burma democracy movement lead to such bitter situation? The answer may be in the history. There are very important historical particularities in Burmese politics. They are as follows: 1.

The Role of Military

Since 1962, Burmese Military has occupied entire political matrix. To turn the Military from political organ to professional organ is the main goal of democratic movement. However, this is not an easy task, so it cannot be implemented during a short period of time. It may be protracted process which needs not only courage but also tolerance. We have to pass a transitional period before we get our main goal. During this period we inevitably accommodate the military. 2.

The Role of Middle Class

The road to modernity in the East (including Burma) was very different from that of the West. In Burma there were no historic events like Industrial Revolution or Enlightenment Movement of 18th and 19th century west. Burma engaged with modern social framework through western colonialism. Therefore, Burma’s business middle class has never become independent social force as in the west. It heavily depended on ruling parties, the military after 1962. For this reason we can not rely on this class for the democratic transformation. Politically the most active force in Burma is intellectual middle class. 3.

Maturity of the democratic forces

However, the maturity of the democratic forces, including intellectual is not so good. Living under the politically gelded condition for about 50 years, (from 1962 to now), democratic Knowledge level of Burmese people (I mean both common people and party members) is disparately low. Moreover, the influence of radical ideology such as Marxism was so strong in Burmese political and literary circles that most of the popular uprising often fell into the radical black hole ultimately led to complete eradication by the rulers or violent revolution that means civil war. This kind of outbreak will inevitably promote the role of military in Burma’s Politics. 4. Weakness of Institutions In 1962, the military took over and ended civilian rule. The military government consolidated its power by institutionalizing one party state. Since then, there has been no democratic institution with check and balance mechanism. After 1988 pro-democracy movement, various political parties Iowa City Public Library and the International Writing Program Panel Series-October 10,2008: Glaydah Namukasa (Uganda), Lee Jang Wook (South Korea), Rogelio Saunders (Spain), Kyaw Win (Myanmar), Ioannis Skarags (Greece). For electronic text,please visit: http:// iwp.uiowa.edu

Win

2

reemerged but all of them (including NLD) could not institutionalize their organizations to become strong political forces. Therefore, it can be said that all the institutions in Burma (both government institutions and political parties) are in very poor conditions. 5.

Weakness of Civil Society

In Burma there are some traditional kinds of civil society. However nearly all of them are based on religious matter and not familiar with modern democratic principles. In late 20th century and early 21st century, a new from of civil society such as NGOs and INGOs began to emerge. However, without systematic institutionalization and less of moral and political norms, some of them often turned to business or semi-business organizations. Whether we like it or not these historical features are genuine characteristics of Burmese society.

III.

POLITICAL SPECTRUM

Under these circumstances, what is to be done? To answer this question, we should understand the roles and stances of both sides (military and democratic sides) thoroughly. -Military Side SLOC and later SPDC successively claimed it was a coup detat government. This is the major difference between Gen, Nay Win’s military coup in 1962 and the current junta. Actually, the nature of current junta is transitional. However, they themselves are reluctant for democratic transition, for they would like to grip power if they can. Nevertheless, they also realize that under constant pressures domestically and internationally, democratic transformation is inevitable. Their proposed 7-steps Road Map may be the reflection of their aim and stance. Although their first priority is to extend the time as long as possible, the monk-led 2007 September uprising accelerated the Road Map process and finally reached this current situation. According to this point of view coming 2010 election is the benefit of September movement, so we should not neglect it. Although the junta’s intention is to protect their power and interests by using its new constitution, they have to allow a political democratic forces since 1988. No matter how narrow this space is, we should play carefully in it, because we have no other choice except this one. Various pro-military elements will surely contest this election. -Democratic Side Depending on their roles and stance toward 2010 election, there may be four groups of civilian politicians. They all are in the democratic Side but their ways of thinking are very different and thus the outcomes may be very different too. 1.

2.

First Group ---------This group represents the hardliners among opposition movements. They will reject 2010 election and refuse to participate. Most of them are exile. (I think they have their own interest) Some of NLD leaders may be in this group. Second Group-------They are also hardliners but they see the election as a step towards a confrontation with the military. According to their opinion the coming election is a tactical playground for further escalation of the conflict. Some of NLD leaders and the veteran party (CPB) may be in this group. In my opinion the outcomes of these two groups will be the same, violent revolution that can lead to civil war.

3.Third Group---------This group represents moderate political forces, so-called ‘third force’. They see the coming election strategically and they tend to expect the 2010 election may offer an

Iowa City Public Library and the International Writing Program Panel Series-October 10,2008: Glaydah Namukasa (Uganda), Lee Jang Wook (South Korea), Rogelio Saunders (Spain), Kyaw Win (Myanmar), Ioannis Skarags (Greece).

Win

23

opportunity to break through from current dead lock. They want to seek a common ground with military (that may be economic development) and from that ground to start confidence building and to seek much need reconciliation for the country. In my opinion, their thinking may be the most possible trend for future democracy but unfortunately they are the weakest group in democratic side. Although they have not emerged as an institutionalized political force yet, they are likely to establish their political platform to contest the 2010 election. 4. Fourth Group--------This group represents ceasefire groups. Most of them will seek to strengthen their legitimacy through the exiting electoral process. They may become important ally for third force.

CONCLUSION Realistically, the junta’s Road Map is inevitable. The military will not drop its Road Map and seek an alternative political settlement with opposition. Any political outcomes have to go through the military-led transitional process. To reject this process means to reject reality. To continue the democratic course without military is impossible. Politics is art of possible. What matter most in Burmese Politics is to deal with reality and to choose possible way realistically.

SOCIAL CHANGE: THE FALL OF THE BERLIN WALL Kyaw Win

Whenever I think of social change, a monumental date appears in my mind. November 9, 1989. This is the most significant date in my life and for our country and (I believe) for the whole world too. This historic date marked the fall of the Berlin Wall. This meant not only the end of the

Iowa City Public Library and the International Writing Program Panel Series-October 10,2008: Glaydah Namukasa (Uganda), Lee Jang Wook (South Korea), Rogelio Saunders (Spain), Kyaw Win (Myanmar), Ioannis Skarags (Greece).

Win

24

Soviet Empire and Cold War, but also the birth of anew global thinking. Amartya Sen, the Nobel Prizewinning Harvard economist remarked about this event as follows: “There is a lovely story in Sanskrit about a frog that is born in a well and stays in the well and lives its entire life in the well. Therefore, it has a worldview that consists of the well. That was what the world was like for many people on the planet before the fall of the wall. When it fell, it was like the frog in the well was suddenly able to communicate with frogs in all the other wells.” When I think about my past life, I am that frog in Amartya Sen’s story. Throughout my life I was kept in the dark well of my country’s political background. To understand the whole story, I need to explain a brief history of my country, Burma, (now, Myanmar). On January 4, 1948, Burma regained her independence from the British Colonial rule. But as soon as we declared our independence, a civil war, based on ideological conflicts, broke out in our country. Under the pressure of civil war, we lost individual freedom, civil society, economic growth and even democratic political life. The Burmese civilian government, inevitably drawn into the civil war, had to rely on the army, and Burmese military became a strong political force. In 1962, the military took over and ended parliamentary rule. This event ushered in the disastrous era of the “Burmese Way to Socialism,” a euphemism for military dictatorship. Throughout the military reign, the main opposition group was CPB, Communist Party of Burma, the veteran political party founded in 1939 by Aung San, our national hero. The political influence of CPB was very great since colonial days, and the party continued to attract Burmese young people, especially university students until nearly 1990. When the military took over, I was only a ten year-old child, but I was strongly interested in Marxism through reading novels by left-wing Burmese writers such as Dagon Taya Bamaw Tin Aung, Mya Than Tint as well as others. During my university days, I was recruited by an underground unit of CPB and I became one of its their members. At that time, Marx was a towering genius for me and the Marxist explanation of how society works came as a thrilling revelation. I believed Marxism was the only ideological weapon for our liberation movement. However, when I was thrown in prison for the first time in 1976, I realized first-hand the importance of human rights and began to be suspicious of one of Marx’s key doctrines. Marx had said that human rights were the prevarication of the bourgeoisie. Nevertheless, this suspicion could not dilute my belief in Marxism so that I became a communist insurgent when I was released in 1979. Ironically, my faith in Marxism grew weaker and weaker during my so-called revolutionary days under the flag of communist party. I wanted freedom but was handed another dictatorship. I hoped for the development of our society, but witnessed such great disruption in people’s lives that I began to think Marxism was a system for making people equally poor. I could not believe in a violent revolution that means a quest for liberation through death. I wanted to search for practical solutions for my country. Fortunately, my insurgent days lasted no more than five years. In 1982 I was arrested in a battlefield near the Chinese border and was detained for about four years, enough time to contemplate my experiences. This time my interest went beyond Marxism, and I looked for alternative ideas. While we were wrestling in a civil war, the world had changed dramatically. Both Soviet Union and China had already lost their ideological grip. The cold war was near to end. Marxism was moribund. Most of the world’s nations, including our neighboring countries, were redirecting themselves toward democratic, consensual, free-market-oriented governance and away from authoritarian rule with centrally planned economic systems. During the 1988 democratic uprising, known as “ Tetra Eight Movement” (so known because of the four “8” 8/8/1988), I profoundly realized the true desire of our people. They no longer liked socialism or communism, or any kind of dictatorship. Their destination was to build a democratic society with freemarket economy. In fact, this destination was the goal of 1988 movement as well. After this historic moment, I was imprisoned again. During my imprisonment, the Berlin Wall fell down and the Cold War came to an end. I saw twilight in the dark. The old era died and a new one was born. The Cold War had been a struggle between two systems, capitalism and communism, and with the fall of the wall there was only one system left. This system was capitalism, otherwise known as the democratic free-market system and the mission of our 1988 movement. On November 9, 1989 the fall of Berlin Wall unleashed the forces that ultimately liberated all the captive peoples from communist ideology. I was among those captive peoples. The Berlin Wall was a way of preventing a kind of global view of our future. We could not think globally about the world when it was

Iowa City Public Library and the International Writing Program Panel Series-October 10,2008: Glaydah Namukasa (Uganda), Lee Jang Wook (South Korea), Rogelio Saunders (Spain), Kyaw Win (Myanmar), Ioannis Skarags (Greece).

Win

25

there. We could not think about the world as a whole. When the wall disappeared, our ideologically isolated eggshell broke, freeing our thinking and our future.

Reference------ The World Is Flat by Thomas Friedman The Argumentative Indian by Amartya Sen

Iowa City Public Library and the International Writing Program Panel Series-October 10,2008: Glaydah Namukasa (Uganda), Lee Jang Wook (South Korea), Rogelio Saunders (Spain), Kyaw Win (Myanmar), Ioannis Skarags (Greece).