Burma, a Failed Experiment?

1. Non Violent Resistance in Burma Burma, a Failed Experiment?

2. Key Dates up to 1990 • 1948 – independence from British granted. Constitution drawn up based around parliamentary democracy and a welfare state. Ethnic states granted power over internal affairs. • 1962 – Ne Win and the Revolutionary council take control of the country • 1974 – BSPP (Burma Socialist Programme Party) formed by military dictorship and new constitution drawn up. • 1988 – Military Government collapses. • 1990 – Elections held, National League for Democracy (NLD) won easily but military Junta refused to honour results

4. Political Background • Before the British, the power of Burman kings relied on military power • Mya Maung argues that authoritism, ascriptivness, low economic productivity and a loosely structured social system are all characteristics of Burma which stretch back for centuries. Also argues that centralised and personalised hierarchies are characteristic of Burmese Government • Burma is also demographically divided between the ethnically Burman people who live in the large towns and cities around the centre and the ethnic groups which live in the 'frontier lands' of the country. • Those living in the 'frontier lands' have traditionally been difficult to control and their relationship with the central state remained problematic since Independence. Many ethnic armies have been engaged in a constant state of war with the tatmadaw (Burma's armed forces). • Ne Win (military dictator from 1962-88) was often able to detract from his own failings blaming hated groups (such as many Indian and Chinese minorities at the time) within what is a very divided Burmese society. • Burma had not had a good experience with parliamentary democracy between 1948 and 1958. Despite well intentioned policies, the Government had struggled to control many of the conflict between pro Government and anti government people in the 'ethnic states'. By the end of the 1950s a strong military was well respected. • 2 main problems in Burma: military rule and ethnic conflict. Lots of fighting between ethnic groups near the borders and Government forces throughout the second half of the 20th century

5. 1988-1990 • In 1988 large scale non violence led by students calling for democracy received wide support from population in towns and cities • Huge street protests held against Shu Maung • Independent Monks Union also engaging in acts of protest • Pressure from armies of ‘ethnic states’ on the borders. • Nationwide strike called on 8/8/88 which eventually caused the military Government to collapse • However, a power vacuum was left by Brutal military crackdown. State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC) staged coup. • Elections held in 1990 - The National League for Democracy (NLD) won but SLORC refused to honour the results.

6. Reason for discontent with Military Regime by 1990 • The people of Burma have a common but diverse hatred of dictatorship. Their personal liberties have been constantly quelled for a period of over 45 years by a Government which has not been legitimately elected despite the 1990 results. • Political Parties hate it because the 1990 election results have not been honoured and they are generally excluded from any decision making • Business people unhappy because generals are notoriously incompetent at running the economy but do not trust economists enough to let them do it. This was shown after 1990 when, despite opening up the country to private enterprise after a long period of complete nationalisation, the Government failed to maintain economic development past 1995. • The Ethnic states on the borders hate dictatorship because it has led to military occupation of what many see as their territory. • Writers hate it because of censorship and the lack of freedom allowed. Any kind of satyr or anti Government humour is also clamped down on. • Religious leaders want protesting monks to be freed and have often pointed to the regime's dishonesty being out of line with Buddhist teachings. • Student's university courses have also been disrupted by the policy of the Government to shut universities down whenever there is any unrest, making education suffer hugely.

7. The Unified Strategy • After the 1990 election results were not honoured, a Government in exile was formed near the Thai and Indian borders • Many of the Ethnic states’ military power had been weekend and they sought a settlement with the Government. However, some were willing to fight on. • 3 elements of struggle devised to tackle the military regime post 1990 election: • 1) Armed struggle but only to be carried out In ethnic states • 2) Non violence used in the heartland of Burma • 3) Non violent and diplomatic struggle abroad, orchestrated by the Government in exile (NCGUB) • Weakened by several Government victories in the early 90s, Armed ethnic groups moved away from trying to control the 'unified strategy' and took their place in protecting ethnic peoples from Junta • NLD would now orchestrate the non violent struggles in the cities and armed groups would provide 'safe havens' for leaders of NLD as well as helping with communication in and out of Burma • Armed forces became answerable to Auug San Suu Kyi and the NLD • The non violent and violent aspects of the movement, however, have remained very separate .

8. Aung San Suu Kyi's 'Open Forums' • On 10th July 1995 she was released from house arrest • She immediately resolved to get back to the work of the party and to also speak outside her house at weekends • It emerged that she had been let go in order to improve relations with Japan who were willing to give Burma more economic aids in exchanged for greater political and economic openness • Aung San's compound quickly became a new centre of activism. • Had Independence day celebration at her house to try to raise awareness of her campaign. This included two mimes who provided a satirical take on the military dictatorship. They were later incarcerated for 7 years. • Also continued to hold public talks every weekend, something she called an 'open forum'. • This provided a good forum for people to mix and communicate their ideas • Aung San tried to get across the idea that people had to work for democracy; it would not just be handed over to them. • She tried to empathise that people had the power and should have confidence in their ability to bring about change. • Fink writes that “The celebratory feeling at the talks was infectious”. • Despite relatively small turn outs (3,000-10,000), cassettes and videotapes were made of the speeches. and then distributed amongst the population • The military eventually forcefully ended the talks. However, Aung San had inspired a new generation of student activists.

9. Pressure Groups: Student Protest • Students have a long history of action in Burma which started under the British in 1920. • Active between 1962 and late 1970s, the regime often responded by closing down Universities. Often organised strikes, marches and boycotts. • Often met with brute force, after the 1962 coup 100 students were killed and the Student Union building in Rangoon was blown up. • Between 1988 and 1990 when political freedom was briefly allowed, many Burman students fled to the borders and started dialogues with armed ethnic groups. • Have organised underground since the military takeover of 1990 • Mobilised 4-5,000 to march in Rangoon in 1988 • Increase and maintain awareness of evils of dictatorship through spreading literature, leaflets etc. • Student demonstrations in 1996 – marching through Rangoon, sitting and praying. Often broken up by authorities with water cannons and beatings. • 1998 over 1000 students gather for a pro democracy rally in Rangoon1996 • Students also took new inspiration from free Burma groups springing up all over American campuses

10. Overseas Pressure • Mya Maung describes this as the biggest success of non violent strategies post 1990. Massive boycotts organised in America, Europe and Japan. • Burmese resistance has a great international standing. • 10s of millions have been raised from overseas

11. Media Sector • Production and distribution of literature is seen as a good way of circulating pro-democracy ideas amongst the oppressed • Rangoon alone has almost 40 independent newspapers • Public statements used to condemn oppressive actions of policies • Circulation of recordings of Aung San Suu Kyi also key part in raising awareness. • Letters of grievance and petitions also used as an outlet by pro-democracy campaigners.

12. Monks • Show protest by refusing alms from military personnel Did in in 1988 and also in 2008. • 22nd September 2008 the All Burma Monks Alliance called for people to "struggle peacefully against the evil military dictatorship". After this many ordinary people joined them in their procession again the dictatorship past several sacred places in Rangoon • The protests continued despite the military using tear gas to disburse them • Given the reverence they are accorded by the predominantly Buddhist public, they are harder for the regime to dismiss as criminals and subversives

13. Other forms of protest • Symbollic public acts (flags, photos of Aung, wearing traditional clothing) • Women's movements • Demonstrative funerals • Satyr and music

14. Possible Causes for failure • For various reasons the population of Burma has not been able to mass mobilise • Divided Society – 46 million people divided ethnically, culturally and linguistically • Focus on day to day struggle of life prevents prolonged non violent campaign for lots of Burmese. • Very strict regime, constantly arresting leaders before they have time to establish prolonged movement • The Junta is still able to use the violence of ethnic states to legitimise its rule. • The junta's leaders, pointing to the country's chaotic period of parliamentary democracy between independence in 1948 and the military takeover in 1962, sincerely believe the army is the only institution capable of holding ‘Myanmar’ (Burma) together. • Many of the ethnic minorities continue to distrust the majority "Burmans", even including the democrats. Many fear that without military rule the country would become divided. This continues to make the 'Unified Strategy' problematic. • Still no single movement united behind non violence (???)