Burma Cannot Have a Democracy

¶ … Burma Cannot Have a Democracy

Present-day conditions in Burma are critical, as in spite of the fact that the authorities seemingly put across acceptance of democratic principles, they are reluctant to allow people to express themselves freely within the country's borders. The situation is aggravated by the fact that the government is refusing outside assistance and is generally determined to be the only one in charge of conditions in the country. The fact that Burma has taken on an ostensibly pro-democracy character along with the support that the county's leadership receives from influential powers like China makes it very difficult and downright impossible for it to become a bona fide democrat state somewhere in the near future. The liberation of Aung San Suu Kyi in particular is most probably part of a strategy meant to have the outside world feel less motivated to criticize political affairs in Burma.

China is indifferent to the chaos in Burma and this is particularly worrying because it is one of the only powers that can actually intervene and support a democrat opposition party in its neighboring country. Whereas some might consider that China's behavior in this situation is condemnable, the People's Republic is in point of fact more interested in having a stable government in Burma. Although the Chinese are not actually enjoying seeing troops putting down rebels, their main goal is to prevent a revolution from happening in the territory, as they consider that this might have a negative impact on China as a whole (Hilsum, 2007).

The international public fails to see the bigger picture in Burma by concentrating on Suu Kyi alone and on her heroic resistance in front of a prolonged period of persecutions. With the army representing the main force in the country, democrat rebels should turn their attention toward acting in accordance with the military and to making it understand that democracy (or democratic principles at least) is essential for them to experience progress in all domains. People have to understand that reform firstly needs to be done through appealing to the armed forces. It would surely be easier and less costly for a state of democracy to be created through graduate change than through constantly using inexperienced civilians as fighters against some of the country's most experienced combatants (Zarni).

In spite of the fact that everyone would like matters to be simpler in the case of Burma, the masses need to comprehend that the authoritarian government in the country is not going to change as a result of outside pressures or because of Suu Kyi's intervention. The fact that the opposition's leader was released stands as proof that the country's current leaders have developed a great deal of trust in their own powers and that they are no longer considering that Suu Kyi poses a threat to their well-being. Her release does not actually mean that she is free to exercise her rights and get actively involved in creating a better democrat movement that would oppose the government. Similar to how they behaved during the two previous periods when she was released from imprisonment, the authorities are likely to impose their power and prevent her from getting involved in political affairs in the country (Burmese Dissident Is Freed After Long Detention).

Although Suu Kyi's release can be taken for an example of pro-democrat principles in the government, reality can be very different. It might be that the battle she is about to face is more complex and difficult than how it was before, considering that the country's contemporary leaders have officially expressed their lack of support in regard to democracy and in regard to outside interventions in the country. By maintaining relatively peaceful relationships with other countries, they have ensured that matters in Burma will not change in the coming future.