Non-violent resistance in Burma: a failed experiment?

Burma

Non-Violent Resistance in Burma.Was it a Failed Experiment?

Non-Violent Resistance in Burma.

Non-Violent Resistance in Burma: Was it a Failed Experiment?

The history of Burma's independence since 1948 is essentially one of struggle. Since this time a military regime has been the dominant power in the country. The struggle towards full democracy has been represented by a number of pro-democratic movements and events. However these attempts at democracy have been met with extreme force and violence by the ruling military junta; such as the 1988 uprising in the country when peaceful protests were crushed with extreme military aggression. This violent response to peaceful protest has been repeated again in recent years.

The long history of attempts at democracy in this country raise a central question that this paper will attempt to answer; namely, has non-violent resistance and protest failed in Burma and is it time for more extensive and forceful measures? In order to provide a comprehensive answer to this question, the history of the pro-democracy movement in the country as well as other forms of resistance will be investigated. The focus will be on the prevalence of non-violent forms of resistance and protest that have been the main form of dissent to date.

The central thesis that will be explored is that non-violent resistance has a potential for change but that in the case of Burma this form of protest has not achieved any real change over a long period of time. While the philosophical and religious ethos of non-violence is laudable, its failure to produce any real and tangible change suggests that more forceful and extensive measures should be introduced, which would also include the full support of the international community.

2. Non-Violent Resistance: a Brief Assessment

Non- violent protest and resistance towards democracy has a long history not only in Burma but in other regions of the world. The obvious example that springs to mind is the non-violent struggle in India that was successful in ousting British colonial rule.

However, there are two schools of thought on the effectiveness of non-violent protest and resistance. As one study states, "The kind of non-violent protest we are now witnessing in Burma / Myanmar doesn't always bear edible fruit…"

The article points out that while peaceful forms of resistance worked for Gandhi and India as well as for Martin Luther King and the American civil rights movement, "… it certainly didn't for the students of Tiananmen Square who were brutally and unsparingly crushed, despite their success in opening up immense fissures in the ruling Communist Party elite."

the implication is that the non-violent road is one that is not always the best in terms of desired outcomes.

We could juxtapose this view of the failure of peaceful forms of resistance with the success of non-violence in the move towards democracy during the last century. While the twentieth century is often described as a period of bloody violence it is also known for the success of non-violent political action as well. In the words of Gandhi, "Strength…does not come from physical capacity, it comes from an indomitable will."

It is these two perspectives that frame the political reality of the country of Burma or Myanmar. There are of course many other factors that can be brought to bear in the understanding of the use of peaceful forms of resistance in the face of violent tyranny. The attitude of the international community and the religious and philosophical ethos of the culture of the people also play a crucial role in this regard. These aspects will be discussed in the course of the following discussion.

3. Non-Violent Resistance in Burma: Brief background

Democratic rule in the country came to an end with a military coup by General Ne Win in 1962. This was to lead to rule by a revolutionary council between 1962 and 1974. During this period there was nationalization of all aspects of society and complete government control.

Ne Win continued to rule Burma with the Burma Socialist Programme Party (BSPP). The country sank into decline and poverty during this period. There was a great deal of criticism of the regimes mode of government from the international community and from within Burma.

This situation was to incite protest and there were forms of protest and resistance virtually from the beginning of the rule of the military junta, especially by students. As early as 1963, demonstrations were stopped by the government at Rangoon University and in 1974, the military "…violently suppressed anti-government protests at the funeral of U. Thant. Student protests in 1975, 1976 and 1977 were quickly suppressed by overwhelming force."

Further violations of human rights, such as the persecution of resident aliens were to lead to the exodus of approximately 300,000 Burmese Indians and to the complete nationalization of private enterprise in 1974.

As briefly referred to, the discontent among the populace came to a head in 1988 as a result of political and economic oppression and there were widespread protests and demonstrations that were violently put down by the regime. Thousands were killed during these protest and General Saw Maung subsequently took control and formed the State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC). Martial law was decreed in 1989 and the countries name was (undemocratically) changed to "Union of Myanmar" in that year.

While elections were held in 1990, the winnng party led by Aung San Suu Kyi was not permitted to assume power. This situation was severely criticized by the international community and in 2006 the "…International Labour Organization (ILO) announced it will be seeking -- at the International Criminal Court -- to prosecute members of the ruling Myanmar junta for crimes against humanity over the continuous forced labour of its citizens by the military."

Protest erupted again in 2007 as a result of the ruling junta's decision to increase the price of gas and petrol. In this protest the Burmese monks played a highly visible role. This protest was met with force and many were arrested and killed. However there were signs of possible dissent within the ranks of the military at the actions of the government.

5. Forms of Peaceful Protest and Resistance in Burma

In the light of the intractable nature of the government and the vicious application of military force there seems to be little hope of achieving democracy without the use of violence. One pundit notes the following in an assessment of the possibility of achieving democratic right in the face of the continuous and often unethical application of military force. "Since 1962, Burma has been run by the military. Despite brief glimmerings of hope for the pro-democracy opposition, the ruling junta remains as firmly entrenched as ever."

However, in spite of the intractable nature of the ruling junta most of the resistance in the country has been, and still remains, of a passive and non-violent nature.

The reasons for the continued use of non-violent means of achieving freedom lie to a great extent in the philosophical and religious background of the culture. In order to understand something of the ethos and tradition of non-violence in this society one has to understand the religious underpinnings of this type of resistance. This becomes very clear for the words and public pronouncements of Aung San Suu Kyi, the leader of the National League for Democracy

She advocates a philosophy of care and concern for members of the society. This includes the value of metta or loving kindness, which is a fundamental aspect of Buddhist ethics. This refers particularly to Theravada Buddhism. Therefore, She attempts to"…temper the rising tide of violence that was occurring in Burma by advising the audience to attend to 'rightful principles'; referring to the teachings of Buddhism, which informs the broader Burmese culture."

The term 'rightful action' in Theravada Buddhism "…specifically deals with nonviolence, requiring adherents to refrain from doing harm intentionally or delinquently…. It is the opposite of violent or destructive mental states."

Monks therefore represent these ideals and have exerted their right to peaceful protest in demonstrations against the government. In the 2007 demonstrations against the regime they marched while uttering chants and prayers in Rangoon. Their protest was peaceful and completely non-violent "…despite a baton charge by police at the city's holiest shrine."

As noted above, student dissent and protest has formed an important part of the resistance movement in the country. This peaceful opposition has been extended by the "open forums" that Aung San Suu Kyi undertook in meetings with military junta leaders in 2007. While the meeting were ostensibly intended to repair the rift between the democratic movement and the military government they were in reality little more than propagandist attempts to ameliorate the image of junta. As one report states the meetings "…don't mean anything. Overall, it's a staged meeting in which to show the soft side of the Burmese military junta."

The same report also offers the opinion that, "It is time for the international community to come together and pressure the military junta to free Suu Kyi. She will be the first step towards democracy in Burma if she is freed."

6. International Pressure

Brief reference has already been made to the general condemnation of the Burmese government by international bodies such as the United Nations. However, there is still no political consensus among the international community on the situation. "World governments remain divided on how to deal with the military junta."

This refers to the fact that some countries, such as the United States as well as France and Canada, are in favor of sanctions as a means of pressurizing the Burmese government; while counties like China are opposed to sanctions. There are those within Burma such as prominent figures like Thant Myint-U who feel that the application of severe sanctions would harm the Burmese people more than the government.

7. Conclusion: Has Non-violence Failed?

Taking the above analysis into account and especially after the severe crackdown against protesters in 2007, it would seem that the policy of non-violent resistance has in fact failed to remove the government or even created any real and lasting concessions. From a perspective outside the country it would certainly appear that non-violent protests as a means of changing the status quo have failed and that new and more forceful initiatives are needed.

However, one should also bear in mind that from another perspective there are those in Burma who believe that persisting in non-violent resistance will eventually create the desired democratic changes in the country. This is the view of figures like Suu Kyi who wrote after the 1988 uprising that,

If you ask whether we shall achieve democracy ... here is what I say: Don't think about whether or not these things will happen. Just continue to do what you believe is right. Later on the fruits of what you do will become apparent on their own.

It is a moot point whether this view still pertains today and whether the number of people who still believe in the continued efficacy of non-violent protest has declined.

Nevertheless, the protesters in Burma have to a large extent "…continued to be overwhelmingly nonviolent, despite ongoing brutal arrests and imprisonment."

As one commentator stated after the 2007 non-violent demonstrations;

It seems that the Burmese nonviolent uprising has failed. The monks have been jailed or killed. There are still spotty demonstrations by angry people on the streets of Rangoon, but the army seems to be breaking them up quickly. One must feel discouraged.

There are many critics who are concerned that the recent failure of peaceful resistance, especially when the status of the monks in Burmese culture were also ignored by the regime, could mean that faith in this method of resistance will be lost. This has led commentators to suggest that, "It would be naive to expect to overthrow any dictatorship merely by marching in the street. Demonstrations must be supported by other forms of protest, such as boycotts or strikes."

An aspect that is of concern in resolving this problem is that the international community is not unified on this matter. Countries like China still support the Myanmar regime. "China, in particular, is selling arms to Burma and will be buying much of its main product, natural gas."

France also has oil interests in the region through its Total Company. There is a feeling among many researchers and critics that as long as large corporations from countries like China and France continue to function and profit from the regime in Burma, then the military junta will have support to remain in power. This in turn means that the objectives of peaceful resistance become all the more difficult to attain.

In critiquing the method of non-violent resistance among the Burmese, one should respect their commitment to their view of life and to the ethos of non-violence. On the other hand it is becoming more and more evident that non-violent methods of resistance are simply not enough to usurp the Myanmar regime. A possible solution lies in the application of stringent international sanctions that could be implemented so as to reduce the impact on the people themselves. However this objective is seriously hampered by the non-participation of major countries like China.

In the final analysis one is reminded of the situation that existed in countries like Apartheid South Africa, where non-violent protest was also met with violence and extreme force by a similarly doctrinaire and unyielding regime. In this country leaders like Nelson Mandela were eventually forced to adopt more forceful and violent means of protest in order to convince the government of the necessity for change. While peaceful resistance is the first option, the South African scenario is possibly the unfortunate but inevitable road that the Burmese people might have to take in order to achieve true democratic independence.