Win 1

WHAT MATTER MOST IN BURMA POLITICS

I. CURRENT SITUATION

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

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 2

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

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 2 3

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 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.

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 2 4

-Military Side

SLORC 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.

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 2 5

1. 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.
2. 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 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.

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 2 6

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.

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 2 7

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 Soviet Empire and Cold War, but also the birth of a
new global thinking. Amartya Sen, the Nobel Prize-winning 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

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 2 8

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 free-market 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 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.

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 2 9

Reference------ The World Is Flat by Thomas Friedman

The Argumentative Indian by Amartya Sen

http://iwp.uiowa.edu/news/event-docs/2008/Win_Kiaw%20_ICPL.pdf

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).