[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index ][Thread Index ]

Daw Suu's Letter from Burma #41



Mainichi Daily News, Monday, September 16, 1996

DEFINING POLITICAL DEFIANCE, DEMOCRACY:
"Some Problems of Definition"

Letter from Burma (No. 41) by Aung San Suu Kyi

	There is an expression much bandied about these days which, in its
Burmanized form, sounds very much like "jeans shirt." This has nothing to do
with the denim mania that has come to Burma, together with foreign bars and
cigarettes, walking shoes, expensive batiks, Pajeros and all the other
paraphernalia so dear to the hearts of the small, privileged elite who have
profited wonderfully from the selective open market economy.  The expression
actually refers to "Gene Sharp," the author of some works on "political
defiance." These writings seem to be exercising the authorities in Burma
considerably.  Last month, 19 political prisoners were tried in Mandalay and
they were all sentenced to seven years imprisonment, each on a charge of
high treason.  The possession of copies of books by Gene Sharp seemed to
have been taken as part of the evidence against the defendants.  (Not that
"defendant" is an appropriate word to use in connection with political
detainees in Burma as they have no real right of defense at all.)
	At a government press conference this month, more references were made to
political defiance.  When a correspondent asked whether these political
defiance courses initiated by Gene Sharp trained people to commit political
assassinations and other accts of violence, a spokesman for SLORC (State Law
and Order Restoration Council) said they did not know, as they had not
attended any of those courses.  It is very puzzling that courses about the
contents of which the authorities are totally ignorant should be seen as in
any way connected with treason.  It was also alleged at the press conference
that I had talked about political defiance with an American visitor.  When a
correspondent asked me whether this was so, I said that it was not so, as I
could not at all recall any conversation about Gene Sharp or his books or
the courses in political defiance he is said to have conducted.  Later, it
occurred to me that both my interviewer and I had merely been thinking of
political defiance in terms of SLORC-speak.  In fact, political defiance is
no more synonymous with Gene Sharp than with denim shirts.  It can be
defined simply as the natural response of anybody who disagrees with the
opinions of the government in power.  In that sense, the great majority of
people in Burma are perpetually engaged in political defiance in their
hearts, if not in their actions.
	Another interesting question posed by a correspondent at the SLORC press
conference was why the authorities objected to the opposition carrying out
its work.  The answer was that it was dangerous.  A government that has
promised a transfer to "multiparty democracy" views the work of the
opposition as DANGEROUS?  A self-proclaimed conservationist might as well
chop down trees indiscriminately and massacre rare, and not so rare, species
with wild abandon.
	There are two problems of definition in the above paragraph.  This repeated
reference to "multiparty democracy" since the SLORC took over power: Surely
the expression is tautology?  And "one-party democracy" would be oxymoronic.
Democracy basically means choice, and political choice means the existence
of more than one effective political party or force.  "Democracy" by itself
should be sufficient to indicate a pluralistic political approach.
	Then there is the question of the word "opposition." The NLD (National
League for Democracy) is often referred to as "the opposition."  But it was
the NLD that won the only democratic elections held in more than 30 years
and won them with an overwhelming majority such as was not achieved by any
other political party in those countries that made the transition from
dictatorship to democracy in the 1980s and 1990s.  The word "opposition,"
when applied to a party which won the unequivocal mandate of the people,
takes on a peculiar ring.  But leaving that aside, how does one define the
work of an opposition in any country which claims to be heading toward
(multiparty) democracy?
	A group guided by the political legacy of a prominent communist leader who
engaged in armed rebellion against the government for several decades after
Burma regained her independence, and who later laid down arms and recanted,
came to see me some months ago.  They read out the political guidelines laid
down by their late leader which, among other things, condemned the idea of
any work aimed at removing a government in power.  I explained to them that
this was unacceptable to anybody who truly believed in democracy.  In a
genuine democracy, it is the legitimate function of opposition parties to
work at removing the government through the democratic process.  Any
political ideology that disallows parties from carrying out opposition
activities and presenting themselves to the country as viable alternatives
to the existing government cannot be said to have anything to do with
democracy.  To view opposition as dangerous is to misunderstand the basic
concepts of democracy.  To oppress the opposition is to assault the very
foundations of democracy.

********

(This article is one of yearlong series of letters.  The Japanese
translation appears in the Mainichi Shimbun the same day, or the previous
day in some areas.)