Burma/Myanmar: A Boycott turns the Clock Back

by Khin Zaw Win

In the emotion-wracked months following the popular uprising in 1988 in Burma/Myanmar, I had thought of writing something titled A Burmese Sense of the Tragic. Now, 22 years later, something I write could well be titled A Burmese/Myanmar Sense of the Ironic. A country and people who have been cut off from democracy for 48 years are going to have elections on November 7, but a whole slew of vocal ‘democrats’ are clamouring for a boycott of those polls.

I am not about to sing praises for the new Constitution nor the election laws. I am not under any illusions about them. We know very well it is going to be an unequal contest and that it is not a level playing-field. We are aware that the dice is loaded against the democrats. Despite that, or better, because of that, 37 parties and many independents will be contesting, and it is inordinately necessary to do so.

Twenty-somethings who pluck up the courage to go out and teach the electorate how to vote say that many people don’t even know how to mark a ballot. Elections are an institution, together with political parties and democracy itself. If we don’t start building these institutions now, after a hiatus of 20 years, when do we do it? Can a country in our situation afford to wait any longer? When one asserts that the present Constitution and conditions for elections are unacceptable, that means one has to wait and keep pushing for an ‘ideal’ Constitution and conditions for elections. But there are issues that cannot wait, namely:

• an acceptable and durable political settlement to the 60-year-old armed conflict, perhaps the longest in the world;

• the socio-economic situation of the vast majority of the people that grows worse day by day;

• the ending of not only an authoritarian system that has lasted close to half-a-century but also an authoritarian culture; and the building of institutions to replace this;

• a better approach to international state relations with the rest of the world, particularly with neighbouring countries.

The episodic repression-denunciation-isolation hasn’t produced anything except misery for the people.

¨

Democracy is about enlarging choices and options. We say—those who wish to opt out are welcome to follow their opinions. In the same spirit, the path taken by those who wish to engage in the elections should also be acknowledged, if not respected. Regrettably, this is not the case. Much of the media abroad—international as well as diasporic Myanmarese—have sided with the boycott wing and have therefore provided it with megaphones. The pro-election democrats are almost sidelined and worse. A young Danish colleague asked me incredulously, “You use words like ‘optimistic’ and ‘positive’ regarding an election, and you are attacked?”

It has been my good fortune in recent years, with the liberalisation in travel, to be able to speak to audiences abroad about my country. There were receptive audiences everywhere. For me, speaking at the events is a straightforward attempt to enlighten those abroad who are genuinely concerned with Myanmar’s future. Yes, there were people who disagreed with me but I was allowed to state my point of view. Awkward questions were asked; but this is perfectly OK and I responded to them. This represents a marked difference with elements from the democratic Myanmar Opposition, both inside the country and outside. Those people don’t even want me to speak at events abroad, and go to absurd lengths to prevent me. But I speak what’s in my mind, and the reactions—from some former parties and some of the exile media—are rabid and poisonous.

The clash of totalitarianisms that characterised much of the 20th century still has glowing embers in Myanmar, a land that it ravaged. A former, disillusioned Communist rebel confided in me once that “revolutions are about sending others to their deaths”. A lot of the failures from that clash have now jumped aboard the democracy bandwagon and are mouthing the moral high-ground mantras. I see very clearly a phase in our country’s political development and we shall be leaving it (and the people in it) behind.

Activism for democracy will move to the parliaments. There will be 15 legislatures where none had existed. With the elections, democrats will be getting out of the political wilderness and into the next parliament and government. At a time when public confidence in politicians and political parties is low, those elected into parliament will have a chance to set things right.

We in Myanmar commence the serious business of moving a troubled country forward. The country needs sturdy and durable institutions and not more personalism. It has been thrown about for far too long, prey to the whims of personalistic leaders, military as well as non-military. Charisma could have been used in the right way, but it wasn’t. So we see Myanmar’s present new beginning as a change too in the style and substance of leadership. We are seeing the passing of an era. Perhaps if Myanmar is fortunate, we will have political leadership based on proven capability rather than temperament and posturing.

The author, who is the founder Director of the Tanpadipa Institute, a social transformation organisation, is a Myanmar citizen living in Burma/Myanmar. He was a prisoner of conscious in the country for “seditious writings” and human rights work. On release, he has worked on HIV/AIDS, interfaith cooperation and peace-building, policy advocacy, cyclone and drought recovery, and civil society capacity building and networking. He also undertook a speaking tour to ten universities and colleges in the United States to explain the reality of Myanmar. He has published papers on sanctions, civil society, and the political transition, and participated in conferences on Burma/Myanmar at various venues. Most recently he presented a paper on Myanmar/Burma in the run-up to the elections at a seminar in Berlin, September 17, 2010.