‘Democracy is hard to love’ expressed Iris Marion Young in her seminal work on Inclusion and Democracy, in which she looks at social exclusion and attempts to understand justice and its relation to democracy, inclusion and identity politics. While the nature of democracy has been the inclusion of all people in a country within the decision making process, in keeping with the notion of inclusivity, questions have been raised at varied periods over the actual exclusion of minorities, with many examples dotting the planet.
Myanmar was reborn in the democratic world following the ending of decades of military rule and the gradual return to a civilian administration was hailed in many quarters. Freedom fighter, democracy advocate and long time house-arrest detainee Aung San Suu Kyi, not only emerged into the political sphere once again but her party received a mandate to lead the country. 2015 marked her re-entry having already won the general election of 1990 which the military refused to recognize. With her party, the National League for Democracy (NLD) securing 392 of the 492 seats that were contested at the time, her victory was an almost unanimous message from the people of Myanmar that they wanted change, from a military run junta to a democracy. Yet their voices went unheeded.
The failure of the military to respect the verdict did not result in countries trying to enforce the result by bringing about regime change or even using force against Myanmar. Messages were issued and speeches made but the democratic rhetoric appears to have been in its infancy in comparison with what countries in the Arab world experienced in the last decade. There was to be no ‘Asian Spring’ in Myanmar. The people had to wait for nearly three decades to go by before they could see positive change and the election of the NLD leading to the establishment of a government in which Suu Kyi would be State Counsellor and Foreign Minister, owing to her being barred constitutionally from holding the highest office.
A retrospective glance at the last seven decades since Myanmar received independence on January 04th 1948 shows very little in terms of progress as a democratic nation. Whilst General Aung San is hailed as the chief architect for Burmese independence he never lived to see it dawn. The subsequent years of civilian and military rule did little to support the democratic movement within the country, which had its name changed from Burma in 1989 by the ruling military junta, and the renaming of the capital from Rangoon to Yangon.
The country though steeped in history, mainly through its Buddhist connections with many countries in South Asia, is today facing criticism, over its handling of a minority community - the Rohingya - which is surprisingly not widely heard. Amounting to roughly two million, both within and outside Myanmar, the Rohingya community, is facing ethnic cleansing, and is not one of one of 135 distinct ethnic groups that have been recognized by the authorities. Falling outside the eight major national ethnic races of Bamar, Chin, Kachin, Kayin, Kayah, Mon, Rakhine and Shan, the Rohingya continue to face attacks. Whilst 1978, 1991-1992, 2012 and 2015 are some occasions on which the community was tortured, killed, forced to flee their homes and lost their loved ones and belongings, the suffering doesn’t appear to subside, despite the people having lived in the country for centuries.
Internationally, Turkey, their nemesis Saudi Arabia, as well as their protégé, the Maldives, and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) has now been joined by India in condemning the violence that is raging in the parts of Myanmar, but global attention is elsewhere. This is not a nuclearised country nor is it of critical importance to most. Babies who are being washed ashore are on the beaches of an unknown beach. Images of torture and violence are limited to certain media outlets and widely ignored by more mainstream western media. Hence the attitude adopted at present is not surprising. Having praised the democratic transition that took place and the replacement of the military with civilian administrators, the international community prefers to remain silent than criticize that which they praised just a few years ago.
Today that transition appears cosmetic as the new leadership though having undergone immense hardship during decades of military rule, fail to realize the oppressive nature of its own administration. The Minister of Defence, Lt Gen. Sein Win, was formerly the Chief of Staff of the Bureau of Air Defence of the Myanmar Army. His deputy Minister is another general while the Ministries of Home Affairs and Border Affairs also have generals occupying the highest seats. Attention has been continuously focused on Aung San Suu Kyi, though presidential powers are retained by the little known Htin Kyaw.
Hence it is the Nobel laureate who has received condemnation for her stoic silence on the issue of ethnic cleansing. Whilst calls have been made for the award to be rescinded and withdrawn, the Committee awarding the Nobel Peace Prize has not been known for having ever revoked a prize and it is not likely to make an exception in support of the Rohingya. The irony lies in the fact that the Nobel prizes are named after a man whose premature obituary in a French newspaper read, ‘Le Merchant de la mort est mort’ (the merchant of death is dead).
Alfred Nobel realized, at least at the last stages of his life that his discovery of nitroglycerin, which was more powerful than gunpowder, as well as his invention of dynamite in 1867, gelignite in 1875 and ballistite in 1887, among 355 other patents he had been issued internationally, all brought about destruction. Coming from a family which had produced armaments in the Crimean War, Nobel even lost a younger brother and four others in the preparation of nitroglycerin in 1864 in Stockholm, yet at the time of his death had established 90 armament factories.
Though advancements made by individuals in varied fields have been hailed and rewarded in history, in the spirit of encouraging such feats and nurturing the growth of greater interest in the specified sector, the Nobel Prizes for peace, chemistry, medicine, physics and literature, have drawn criticism especially in the category of peace.
The failure of the military to respect the verdict did not result in countries trying to enforce the result by bringing about regime change or even using force against Myanmar. Messages were issued and speeches made but the democratic rhetoric appears to have been in its infancy in comparison with what countries in the Arab world experienced in the last decade. There was to be no ‘Asian Spring’ in Myanmar. The people had to wait for nearly three decades to go by before they could see positive change and the election of the NLD leading to the establishment of a government in which Suu Kyi would be State Counsellor and Foreign Minister, owing to her being barred constitutionally from holding the highest office.
A retrospective glance at the last seven decades since Myanmar received independence on January 04th 1948 shows very little in terms of progress as a democratic nation. Whilst General Aung San is hailed as the chief architect for Burmese independence he never lived to see it dawn. The subsequent years of civilian and military rule did little to support the democratic movement within the country, which had its name changed from Burma in 1989 by the ruling military junta, and the renaming of the capital from Rangoon to Yangon.
The country though steeped in history, mainly through its Buddhist connections with many countries in South Asia, is today facing criticism, over its handling of a minority community - the Rohingya - which is surprisingly not widely heard. Amounting to roughly two million, both within and outside Myanmar, the Rohingya community, is facing ethnic cleansing, and is not one of one of 135 distinct ethnic groups that have been recognized by the authorities. Falling outside the eight major national ethnic races of Bamar, Chin, Kachin, Kayin, Kayah, Mon, Rakhine and Shan, the Rohingya continue to face attacks. Whilst 1978, 1991-1992, 2012 and 2015 are some occasions on which the community was tortured, killed, forced to flee their homes and lost their loved ones and belongings, the suffering doesn’t appear to subside, despite the people having lived in the country for centuries.
Internationally, Turkey, their nemesis Saudi Arabia, as well as their protégé, the Maldives, and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) has now been joined by India in condemning the violence that is raging in the parts of Myanmar, but global attention is elsewhere. This is not a nuclearised country nor is it of critical importance to most. Babies who are being washed ashore are on the beaches of an unknown beach. Images of torture and violence are limited to certain media outlets and widely ignored by more mainstream western media. Hence the attitude adopted at present is not surprising. Having praised the democratic transition that took place and the replacement of the military with civilian administrators, the international community prefers to remain silent than criticize that which they praised just a few years ago.
Today that transition appears cosmetic as the new leadership though having undergone immense hardship during decades of military rule, fail to realize the oppressive nature of its own administration. The Minister of Defence, Lt Gen. Sein Win, was formerly the Chief of Staff of the Bureau of Air Defence of the Myanmar Army. His deputy Minister is another general while the Ministries of Home Affairs and Border Affairs also have generals occupying the highest seats. Attention has been continuously focused on Aung San Suu Kyi, though presidential powers are retained by the little known Htin Kyaw.
Hence it is the Nobel laureate who has received condemnation for her stoic silence on the issue of ethnic cleansing. Whilst calls have been made for the award to be rescinded and withdrawn, the Committee awarding the Nobel Peace Prize has not been known for having ever revoked a prize and it is not likely to make an exception in support of the Rohingya. The irony lies in the fact that the Nobel prizes are named after a man whose premature obituary in a French newspaper read, ‘Le Merchant de la mort est mort’ (the merchant of death is dead).
Alfred Nobel realized, at least at the last stages of his life that his discovery of nitroglycerin, which was more powerful than gunpowder, as well as his invention of dynamite in 1867, gelignite in 1875 and ballistite in 1887, among 355 other patents he had been issued internationally, all brought about destruction. Coming from a family which had produced armaments in the Crimean War, Nobel even lost a younger brother and four others in the preparation of nitroglycerin in 1864 in Stockholm, yet at the time of his death had established 90 armament factories.
Though advancements made by individuals in varied fields have been hailed and rewarded in history, in the spirit of encouraging such feats and nurturing the growth of greater interest in the specified sector, the Nobel Prizes for peace, chemistry, medicine, physics and literature, have drawn criticism especially in the category of peace.
In 1973, Henry Kissinger and Vietnamese leader Le Duc Tho were awarded the prize for negotiating a ceasefire between North Vietnam and the United States, but Tho rejected it owing to ongoing hostilities. Another American was Barack Obama who won the Prize in 2009, having been nominated just 11 days after assuming duties as President. Bringing about regime change in many Arab countries, Obama goes down in history as possibly the only recipient to have ordered the bombing of cities through the US drone programme.
Personalities such as Mahatma Gandhi and U Thant, a Burmese national to hold the post of United Nations Secretary General who was due to receive the award in 1965 for his role in defusing the Cuban Missile Crisis, seeing the end of the war in the Congo and mediating in the Vietnam War, are just two who were ignored by the Committee.
Personalities such as Mahatma Gandhi and U Thant, a Burmese national to hold the post of United Nations Secretary General who was due to receive the award in 1965 for his role in defusing the Cuban Missile Crisis, seeing the end of the war in the Congo and mediating in the Vietnam War, are just two who were ignored by the Committee.
Irrespective of whether the Prize laureates have made a positive contribution or not, the Prize awarded to Aung Sang Suu Kyi will not be rescinded. A member of the 1991 Nobel Peace Prize Committee was quoted as saying that “the principle we follow is the decision is not a declaration of a saint. When the decision has been made and the award has been given, that ends the responsibility of the committee.” Her stance throughout these incidents of violence have been to claim that ‘no, it is not ethnic cleansing’.
Although the UN Secretary General has condemned the incidents, UN teams are unable to visit the affected areas owing to the non-issuance of visas for entry. The effectiveness of the United Nations is called into question once again as teams from countries wishing to act unilaterally have been able to enter Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya even without authorization from the UN, or any form of internal sanction. Yet the UN is unable to enter a country which pledged to uphold the UN Charter just months after independence in 1948.
From confusion over whether to still call the country Burma or Myanmar; the absence of a strong expatriate community; its location on the world map and the inability for most to find it; and the democratic transition the country faced in recent years, have resulted in a general silence being maintained. Condemning those who were praised remains a tough call, and one that most are unwilling to make. The question that thus arises is whether Myanmar is living up to the democratic values it yearned for years, or is the country still stuck in its autocratic past.
- AWARELOGUE EDITORIAL
