How Myanmar became a Democratic CountryMyanmar became a democratic country
May in Myanmar
But one of the most pleasing things to report in 2011 was "Arab Spring", which distracted people' s interest from an equally unexpected democracy flourishing in Myanmar. One year later, in early 2012, the transition from dictatorial domination in Egypt, Libya, Syria and other Near East nations is not known.
Rather than the slight transition to political democratization that many in America and the West expect, we are witnessing violent and anti-democratic worship. On the other hand, Myanmar's democracies seem to be leaping forward with little force. As a world-renowned symbol of global respect for human rights, Aung San Suu Kyi is likely to gain a legislative office after her by-election on April 1, almost 18 month after her release from more than seven years of uninterrupted detention.
There are three main reasons why, one year after their passage, Myanmar's chances of succeeding seem greater. Firstly, the move to democracy in Myanmar was staged by its longstanding army leaders instead of being sparked off by massive revolts. Secondly, Myanmar is situated in the heart of the fast-growing Asia area.
Third, there is a noteworthy lack of resentment and vengeance in Myanmar. Myanmar's past year's significant achievements in politics and economics are in stark contrast to its historic heritage of demise, from the best -performing West Asia at the end of the Second War - to one of the most socioeconomic indicators-.
Myanmar became self-sufficient in 1948, six month after the murder of General Aung San, the late Aung San Suu Kyi's fathers who spearheaded the struggle for freedom. Numerous democratic government elections have not been able to create sustained economical expansion or solve ethnical tension. In 1990, the new army june re-named the state Myanmar and conducted a multi-party elections.
Unexplicably, they let the National League for Daw Suu Kyi's National League for Daw Kyi won the war. In 1992, General Than Shwe became Myanmar's undisputed ruler and reigned erratically and ruthless. Than Shwe adopted a "seven-step roadmap to a disciplined democracy" in 2004. A further was the multi-party elections in November 2010, which the current administration under the leadership of President Thein Sein has brought about.
Following his investiture, President Thein Sein took a surprise set of steps to avoid the inheritance of Myanmar's conflicts and impoverishment and to normalise ties with the West. The proponents of Westerns sanction claim recognition for putting so much pressure on the state that it could only be saved by becoming democracy.
Had Myanmar's changeover started after the last toughening of penalties in 2008, this assertion might have been plausible but it started four years before. Another questionable assertion is made by Myanmar's counterparts in the Association of Southeast Asia Nations (ASEAN) and its other Asiatic neighbours, particularly Japan, Korea and India.
While they claim that their policy of "engagement" made the change possible, their commitment was rather rhythmic than material. One more convincing statement is the dramatic level of growth that the economies of Asia have made over the last 30 to 40 years. Having fallen behind its neighbours in the pursuit of various ineffective developing strategy, Myanmar's militarist élite seems to have chosen the same course of wealth that these neighbours have taken.
Now, the United States' responsibility is not to jeopardise the Myanmar crossing. It could be a fault to smother Myanmar in goodness. Myanmar is already witnessing the peak of a flood of help. It would be particularly ill-advised in these conditions if the United States followed its impetus to disregard what Myanmar wants and to provide what the United States needs.
One wiser way forward would be to react thoroughly to special inquiries from the Myanmar administration and to work with Myanmar's Myanmar's Asia neighbours. We cannot allow Myanmar's more than 50 million Myanmar residents to have another "winter" by overpowering political decision-makers and assaulting their own mighty interests too quickly.