Democratic struggles in Burma under military rule

Burma has been described as a perfect or nearly perfect dictatorship that has managed to resist reform from within and without its territory from 1962 to the present and in comparison with comparable neighboring countries in the Southeast Asia. The travails of the people of Burma in their struggle for democracy have reached and elicited much international focus and action at the start of the 21st century in its uniqueness and persistence of that struggle.

Having gained its independence from Great Britain after 62 colonial years in 1948, Burma enjoyed only a democracy for 14 years when a military coup cut it short in 1988 and plunged the country into a repressive regime. Ethnic minorities have been restive and, despite losing the multiparty elections in 1990 to the National League for Democracy or NLD, the military junta refused to give power up, placed the winning candidate under house arrest and frustrated attempts by local and international forces to restore democracy to the country. As a result, Burma's population has been suppressed and isolated, dissent has been crushed and its economy in utter distress. The ruling military junta's State Peace and Development Council has not accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the United Nations International Court of Justice.

The persisting repressive regime in Burma has been a long nightmare for its people and a difficult target of intervention for the international community. It is more insulated and capable of parrying such intervention than North Korea, less exposed to criticism than Iraq and less subject to destabilization due to technological advancement than China.

Statement of the Problem, Purpose and Objectives

The series of military regimes that has ruled Burma since 1962 has devastated its economy, stifled dissent, repressed its people and killed many, and isolated the country from the rest of the free world. Democracy has yet to be restored through more adequate cooperation among responsive democratic countries in the world beyond mere sanctions.

The purpose of this study is to trace the movement for democracy against the repressive regimes of Burma locally and globally.

It will attempt to answer certain questions. How have Burma's ethnic minorities fought to form their own separate states? What are the social factors behind the deterioration of its economy? How have international bodies - such as the United Nations and the European Union - reacted to the political, economic and social conditions in Burma? What impact has the repressive regime had on neighboring countries like Thailand? How does it compare with other Southeast Asian countries that underwent repressive military regimes?

II. Review of Literature

Harden, Blaine. Burma's Insidiously Perfect Dictatorship: Opposition is Surgically Eliminated. New York Times, 2000

Harden accounts for the ugly and detailed lessons on the four decades of repression in Burma as a reign of fear, poverty and isolation that has not shown signs of ending. The dictatorship killed at least several hundred pro-democracy protesters in 1988 alone and impressed observers with its thoroughness and creativity. The author quotes one observer as remarking that Burma's dictatorship effectively destroyed civil society by "atomizing" it or by outlawing and eliminating all forms of organization. Another is quoted as saying that the Burmese people have yet to figure out how to adequately resist the regime in other than passive manner. The dictatorship's "perfect" style of governance limits information and fosters mistrust, but prevents individual misery from evolving into mass political action.

Council of Foreign Relations. Getting Nowhere? Paths Toward the Restoration of Democracy, 2001

The Council describes Burma's military rule as one of the most repressive in the world by delving more deeply into the election victory of the National League of Democracy and the ensuing bloodshed in 1990. The report says that the events only served to show that the Senior General and his supporters had total control of Burma, that the dictatorship would resort to any means necessary to hold on to power, and that the Burmese people would support the opposing candidate, if given the option.

It added that the events evoked condemnation from Japan, the ASEAN member countries, the United States, and the European Union. They urged the Burmese government to release the imprisoned Suu Kyi and a return to democracy. On July 28, 2003, U.S. President George W. Bush signed the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act, which froze Burma's assets and denied visas to its regime leaders. Council participants generally agreed that Asian countries could do more than the global bodies: Thailand should make sure that Burmese democratic groups in its territory conducted themselves peacefully and countries with close relations with Burma should apply continuous pressure.

Anderson, Katherine. Understanding the Cultural Situation in Burma. Global Source Education, 2001

Anderson relates how many revolutionary groups signed cease-fire agreements with the military junta only to be duped into greater menace by the soldiers and how other ethnic groups preferred to surrender in order to survive rather than turn extinct. She writes that, despite a new Constitution in 1997, political freedom was not restored in Burma. Political organizing remained outlawed, freedom of assembly or speech and information still suppressed. She notes mounting international pressures and sanctions but international media still have to give as much focus on Burma as they did to Kosovo and East Timor. She also compares the magnitude of the persecution of the Burmese to other global conflicts and draws a parallel between the heroism of Aung San Suu Kyi with Dalai Lama, Desmond Tutu and Martin Luther King, Jr. She draws attention to the Burma situation as a model of non-violent philosophy of political action.

Free Burma Coalition. Burma's Largest Ever Pro-Democracy Uprising to Be Remembered with Events in DC Area. Burma Coalition, 2002

This paper recalls with great horror the largest non-violent pro-democracy action in Burma in 1988 in appropriate ceremonies in front of the Burmese embassy. It also deplores that the current situation in Burma reflects the government stubborn resistance to calls for a return to democracy.

Central Intelligence Agency. Burma, the World Fact Book, 2004

This profile includes Burma's economy, the 1988 elections and bloodshed, ongoing ethnic civil wars that push refugees into neighboring countries, human rights violations, genocide, the further spread of HIV / AIDS, environmental desolation, food shortages and distribution of illicit drugs.

It notes that the Burmese dictatorship has been unable to achieve fiscal or monetary stability, pushing the economy into macroeconomic imbalances. Japan also froze its bilateral economic aid to Burma. Burma continues to encounter trouble with Thailand concerning boundary alignment and the influx of ethnic rebels, refugees and illegal activist entries. India also wants Burma to keep Indian Nagaland insurgents out of its territory

Asian Human Rights Commission. Burma: Torture, Military Dictatorship, Political Accountability, 2003

These are letters of appeal concerning the tribulations of pro-democracy victims and movements in and outside of Burma.

Open Society Institute. Initiative Burma Project. Southeast Asian Initiative, 2004

The Institute focuses on open society issues in the Southeast Asian region where essential freedoms are threatened or do not exist. Its goal is to foster working relations with the international community and Burmese worldwide towards establishing democracy in Burma. It believes that a democratic and open society depends on a given country's human resources, a solid education system based on critical thinking, the right to uncensored information, and the ability to question it without fear.