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

s1: AB99-12...........



RELAYED BY ZTZ.INTERCHANGE.CA *** PL POST OR RELAY, THANKS ******

No.99-12                                        Analytica Birmanie
BURMA: DEMOCRACY, AND ITS OPPONENTS FROM THE OCCIDENT

Debates on whether democracy is suitable for a country such as Burma, and
whether economic growth (and ergo, prosperity and the "middle class")
should come first, before democratic transition (or political reform) is 
still raging. These questions hover in the background in almost every
conversation and debate concerning Burma.

It is generally agreed in academia that good governance creates a healthy
environment for economic growth and development which in turn promotes
prosperity and public well-being. Good governance, as defined by almost
every political scientist, equals lawful, legitimate governments that
observe both the letter the and spirit of the law, including
constitutional provisions, ....in other words, a government that is

responsive to and serves the people, not one beholdened solely to a 
dictator, and state managers and bureaucrats nested in the structures and 
organs of the state.

However, some academics struck by the poverty of the people in countries
like Burma, and especially academics afflicted with a phobic fear of
disorder, have moderated the thesis that links good governance to 
economic development. They have subsequently put forward a new thesis
which asserts that effective governance is more important than good
governance. 

The new thesis argues that effective governments are more efficient in 
bringing about both political order and economic development or growth -- 
both of which benefits the nation. A variation of this thesis states that 
in the "developing" regions of the world (i.e., the "third world"), 
effective governance -- specifically, the kind provided by authoritarian, 
non-democratic governments and leaders are desirable -- nay, necessary. 
As goes the argument, authoritarian governments and leaders will not only 
ensure economic well-being but will also, in the long run, create a more 
politically assertive middle class which will demand -- and obtain, by 
and by -- democratic rights and political liberalization.

In regard to Burma, there has been inserted in addition a notion -- 
gospel truth to its adherents -- that asserts that foreign investment 
which induces economic growth is pivotal to democratic transition. They 
argue that even though the inflow of hard cash, or investment in Burma -- 
i.e., doing business with the junta of generals -- will in the short run 
benefit and buttress the present despotic, repressive military regime and 
enrich the ruling generals, the final outcome will be political 
liberalization.

The "business first, democracy later" notion has led to a quite curious,
"behind-the-looking glass" kind of thinking. It is a kind which turns 
logic upside down. According to this twisted logic, the democratic 
movement is viewed and represented as impeding a democratic transition in 
Burma because it opposes foreign investment. It is argued that because 
the democratic opposition opposes foreign investment -- calls for 
sanctions -- it is opposed to economic growth (or development), and thus 
opposes democratic transition as well. 

The gaggle of "business first, democracy later" spin doctors and 
professional apologists for, and adherents of authoritarian rule, have 
also argued -- by implication -- that in actuality it is the military 
junta, not the democratic opposition, which is in fact working for 
democratic transition since it welcomes foreign investors, rolls out the 
red carpet and treats them like VIPs. This is incredible. The contortion 
skills of these spin doctors is such that it is enough to make a Shanghai 
contortionist die of shame.
    
The "behind-the-looking glass" logic of "business first, democracy later" 
spin doctors and lobbyists of the same stripe, is now being reinforced by 
what might be termed neo-orientalist logic of some academic elements. 
They argue that the aspiration for democracy and democratic governance in 
Burma is unrealistic; that the democratic aspiration is a pipe dream of a 

handful of intellectuals and hopeless idealists, such as Daw Aung San 
Suukyi. 

The neo-orientalists argue that Burma does not have a democratic 
tradition and its people -- the masses especially -- do not possess a 
democratic culture. Such being so, democracy will not work in Burma, even 
if the military withdraws from politics. 

However being clever chaps -- what with the with long academic tails 
they wear and well trained in word play -- these neo-orientalists are 
careful not to sound like British governor-generals and colonial sahibs 
of more than fifty years ago. They instead join the "business first, 
democracy later" crowd by talking about the absence of a middle class and 
the need for economic change and change in cultural values and norms, and 
other nebulous and dubious concepts and theories which can, and have been 
inconclusively debated in modern times. 

Burma's struggle for, and the aspiration of its people for democracy, 
human rights, the dignity of man, egalitarian values, and democratic 
governance, implying responsible, lawful and legitimate government (and 
rulers) is frowned upon not only by the repressive, lawless and 
illegitimate military regime. This is obvious, and it belies the junta's 
allegation that there is a Western neo-colonialist plot to destabilize 
and colonize Burma. 

But in a sense, the junta is right. There is certainly a neo-colonialist, 
neo-orientalist plot from the occident to colonize Burma -- with, of 
course, the support of, and in collusion with Rangoon's ruling generals. 


ANALYTICA BIRMANIE 99
April 1999. 
-------------------------