Myanmar Political NewsPolitical News Myanmar
Aung San Suu Kyi and Myanmar were mistaken
At the end of last year, when the message came that the Myanmar army had systematicly killed members of the country's Muslim Rohingya minorities, much of the rest of the rest of the world was in shock. Myanmar (also known as Burma) has been good for most of the last few years. Following decade-long violent rule by the army, the nation had won the most important opponent political group, the Nazis League for Democracy, an all too uncommon victory in democracy and won the 2015 election in a muddle.
NLD leaders Aung San Suu Kyi, an international celebrity who was awarded the 1991 Nobel Peace Prize for her effort to democratise Myanmar, became Myanmar's de facto chief of state. Numerous psychiatrists and civil servants came to the conclusion that the earldom was on the way to democracy. For a long time Myanmar was in isolation and relied almost entirely on China, which was satisfied with closing its eyes to violations of international law.
Now many people were hoping that Aung San Suu Kyi would bring the countrys internationally order, supported by the West. Myanmar's commanders still hold a large part of the country's politics and economy. Aung San Suu Kyi must find a fragile equilibrium and advance democracy without trampling on the generals.
Away from Ethnic Politics in Myanmar
Last Mon, when a lorry rushed through a roundabout in Thanbyuzayat and destroyed a gold Sheldrake statue, many Mon saw their emotions of stalk. Sheldrake is a symbolic of the Mon civilization and its devastation includes 100 consecutive jubilee ethnical encumbrances, the opening of the disputed General Aung San Bridge and a by-election focusing on ethnical policy.
National ethnicism remains a predominant feature of Burma's political life, and it never seems that Burma's political leaders miss an opportunity to take advantage of racial tension for short-term political ends. It is from the comforting mid-range of the country's dominating people, the Myanmar people, that nationism is taking on the insidious mode of minority asseveration. Following decade-long forced aspimilation by army regime, the new National League for Democracy (NLD) administration often follows the same objectives with informal means and now uses the civil government's mechanism.
Burma/Myanmar's story is a 3,000-year-old ethnical swing in which consecutive groups dominated the mighty Irrawaddy lowland and pushed their ancestors to the edge. As the Burmese became the dominating group, the last of these changes came in the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries. It has always been the scene of countless ethnical groups and uneven key-regulation.
Incoming British tried to take as little trouble as possible to keep the area under their thumb, and their strategies of division and domination sparked tension. As these were pushed aside during the joint fight for freedom, the nationalists driving the move became involved in a chauvinistic Burmese plan that almost brought the trade unions to a standstill.
The usefulness of the instrument of nationalism ran out when the British left in 1948, but it dominated the mood of the élite for the next 70 years. It is a continuation of the present situation in politics. The near defeat of the regime after the country's liberation led to a decade-long military struggle that twisted institutional structures and aggravated ethnical animosities.
Much of the country's most powerful personalities came to rule by taking advantage of racial conflicts - both Burmese general and military ethnical leader became wealthy by mining natural resource in areas of war. Although the assistance plan contravenes global humanitarian laws, the Burmese people' s struggle to stop it has persisted because these leader had little cause to do so.
At this time of excitement, audiences around the globe were hoping that the multifaceted 50 million person national community could enter a new stage of true multi-cultural democracies based on living together in harmony. Policymakers use the concepts "unity" and "peace" inexpensively, but always see those ideas in concepts that only serve their group, whether ethnically or otherwise.
Whilst they can imagine that there will be no civilian death in conflicts, they cannot see that there will be any kind of freedom in which these citizens can study their own languages at schools or where they can take charge of their own state. That is the plundering of ethnical policy. It' s the use of little emotions of nationism and biggerotry to split and divert the Burmese population.
The policy is hiding behind empty ideas of oneness to divert attention from the true problems that a fast-growing Burma must seriously face. Thirty years of studying the rhetoric of the current situation in my own nation makes me think that I have to start writing about this issue before it is too long, and a new generations forget the teachings of the old one.
For so many years, Myanmar and other eminent authors and academics have been looking for a true relationship between the entire population of Burma, just as there have been conflicts. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, an opponent, was a leader of the democracy movements and tried to avoid interfering with the game.
She appealed to be a ringleader for all the people of Burma, not just the people of Burma, who kept placards of her picture on every nook and cranny and in every home. However, as its National League for Democracy has become the country's dominating civil power, it has had to contend with other political groups, particularly the military-linked Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP), which continues to represent ethno-centric extremist ideas under the auspices of "thriving and regulated democracy".
" Instead of sticking to its multi-ethnic origins, the NLD sometimes seemed to pursue the same policy of divisiveness. Discussions on the essence and course of Burma's policies are continuing among the country's various leader. However, it is among scientists and authors that the actual, exploratory research of the present dispute is being investigated.
Unrestricted by the calls for periodic election, these intelligentsia see more basic issues than the NLD and the army war. The elite are not pursuing the weak ethical agendas for want of alternative solutions. Burmese and non-Burmese pro-community leadership have developed political initiative for over twenty years, but have been ignored by the present and former governing elite, according to an article by Nai Hong Sa, New Mon State Party (NMSP) VP and United Nationalities Federal Council (UNFC) spokesperson.
The longest-Servant Mon-Chief, Nai Hong Sa is a celebrity campaigner among 17 major gunmen. Nai Hong Sa and others' objective for a free, decentralised, democratic system of governance can only be achieved if the new leaders of national minorities pursue a policy that is greater than close national interests.
The Burmese state and local government will transfer control to state and local government, not to the trade unions. This means for national minorities to form a wide cross-border alliance that can struggle for the prerogatives of all people. If there is no constitutional basis for a lasting division of powers, the dominant ethnical group - now the Burmese, but perhaps another group one day - will be exploiting the other, less strong groups.
Peoples' policies continue to provide short-term benefits to Burma's leaders. However, as Burma moves towards a free enterprise system, nationwide policies will become even more important. When Burma is hoping to move beyond 60 years of seclusion and move closer to the industrialising South East Asia nations such as Thailand, Malaysia and Singapore, there will be little room for expression.
There is no real federation with free market and free economy liberalisation that can allow itself to squander valuable monetary resources. Aung Aung San Suu Kyi's NLD and the leader of minoritarian communities face huge stakes in steering the reforms agendas. Militarily dominant, the National Defence and Security Council has tremendous powers over politics, but consists of commanding officers who have developed their career not against outside foes but against ethnically militarized groups.
Clearary, that means we' re still in line with our ethical politics. Over the past two hundred years, a profound distrust has grown among Burmese communities, which has been generated by war, racial conflict and the traumatic experience of the present battle for a decent world. However, my home state, a land of abundant natural resource, can be reborn with "unity" as a key lessee of societal, cultured and politically pluralistic values.
Burma's tragic politics cannot advance a country unless a common view of all communities is achieved. It' s ripe for the Burmese authorities to act courageously on their agendas to re-establish the constitutional state for the entire Burmese population and become a people's and people's state.