Democracy in the making, or 'public relations campaign'?

Since his appointment by parliament in February 2011, Myanmar’s President Thein Sein has made several breaks with the policies of the outgoing military junta. They include meeting pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi and convening parliament for the first time in more than two decades.

The moves have drawn mixed responses. Some foreign diplomats have welcomed what they see as the first steps toward true multi-party democracy; others interpret them as little more than attempts to win favour ahead of the November announcement of a new ASEAN chair.

Thein Sein, a former prime minister, is far from a political radical. As a long-serving adjutant to the country’s military dictator, General Than Shwe, Thein Sein was the public face of its repressive rulers.

The junta has been in power in Myanmar since 1988 when it crushed a popular uprising, killing about 3,000 people. Since taking over in 1992, Than Shwe exercised almost total control. He sentenced Suu Kyi to indefinite house arrest after her party won a (disallowed) landslide victory in 1990.

The junta has portrayed elections in November 2010 and a new constitution as marking a return to civilian rule. However, the elections were widely seen as fraudulent and the constitution virtually guaranteed a dominant role for the military. A quarter of the seats in parliament are reserved for military officers.  Along with those held through its proxy political party, the Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP), the military controls about 84 per cent of all seats, according to the United States pressure group Campaign for Burma.

Than Shwe still appears to be calling the shots. Professor Win Min, of Thailand’s Payap University, told The New York Times that the general appointed all government ministers and senior judges, oversaw the budget and was the driving force behind new laws. Four of the country’s five most senior political posts are occupied by former military officers.

“The military is staying in control, but some of them are taking off their uniforms,” said Win Min. He suggested real change was more likely to result from the eventual decline of the 77-year-old Than Shwe.

Priscilla Clapp, who was chief of mission at the US embassy in Myanmar from 1999 to 2002, anticipated little change in the status quo over the next five years.  But she was more optimistic about the growth of democratic governance in the longer term.

“With a system that is so much more complex, inevitably competing centres of power will develop.”
 
Francis Wade, of the non-profit media organisation Democratic Voice of Burma, told Asia Times that the reforms, including a claimed relaxation of media censorship, were cosmetic, and part of “a carefully choreographed public relations campaign” aimed at altering international perceptions.

It is no secret that Myanmar’s leaders are keen to chair ASEAN. They said as much shortly after the new government was sworn in and tabled a formal request at the organisation’s foreign ministerial meeting in July.

The decision on who should take the chair in 2014 is to be made at the 19th ASEAN Summit in Bali in November. Laos should do so, but has agreed to swap its turn with Myanmar, which was due to take the role in 2016. Myanmar's government has already appointed a committee to ready its new capital, Naypyitaw, for a hosting role.

Myanmar was denied its turn to chair ASEAN in 2006 because of international pressure to carry out democratic reforms. But for some outside observers, unrest among the country’s ethnic minorities remains a significant worry. In June, the US voiced concern at Myanmar’s bid for the ASEAN chair, citing renewed fighting in Kachin State and elsewhere.

Researcher Nehginpao Kipgen wrote in the Irrawaddy: “Since the military could not neutralise the ethnic insurgency over the past six decades, it is time for the Burmese government to realise that military operations are not the solution to Burma’s problems.”

Kipgen, whose work focuses on the rise of political conflict in Myanmar, stressed the need to differentiate between Myanmar's dominant ethnic group (Burmans) and others. He noted that the Karens had been forced to become part of the Union of Burma at the Panglong Conference in 1947, and that the Chins, the Kachins and the Shans had signed the Panglong Agreement after being promised autonomy within the Union.

Kipgen said that a permanent end to Myanmar’s problems depended on reconciliation between the government and the country’s ethnic minorities.

Nevertheless, the UN Special Rapporteur on human rights in Myanmar, Tomas Quintana, claimed to see evidence of the country’s parliament and judiciary beginning to function as legitimate state institutions when he visited in August. Despite concern over the treatment of political prisoners, Quintana welcomed Thein Sein’s stress on the need for peace talks with rebels and conciliation toward exiles.

Australia’s Foreign Affairs Minister, Kevin Rudd, has also actively responded to events in Myanmar. He visited the country in June to encourage its new government to make good on the promised reforms.

For now, it seems that the international response to Myanmar’s democratic overtures is one of cautious engagement.

By Vaughan Yarwood

Images:
1. Myanmar's president Thein Sein
2. Uppatasanti Pagdoda in the Burmese capital of Naypyitaw. Plans are already under way to prepare the city to host the ASEAN chair. (Images from Wikimedia, sourced under a Creative Commons Licence)