by Vivek Noble 6 February 2021
Securing a majority electorate is best viewed as challenging enough by most politicians. Assume that even after securing a sweeping majority you are required to obtain an approval from the army top brass. The partial democracy existed in Myanmar functioned this way, allowing military to have significant role in the internal affairs of the country. The National league for democracy (NLD) led by veteran dissident Ms. Aung San Suu Kyi experimented such a bold and yet unfamiliar system of power sharing. The democratic transition which began ten years ago in 2010, partially, after decades of dictatorship has finally found its place back in the hands of Generals.
The story in Myanmar, a Southeast Asian state is diverse and vivid. The chief of Tatmadaw (Army) General Min Aung Hlaing decided to wreck the otherwise peaceful swearing in ceremony of newly elected MPs of the general elections held in November 2020 by arresting and detaining leaders accusing of “terrible fraud in voters list” on 1st of February 2021. The army has declared a state of emergency for one year, ending all the new hopes of change and Suu Kyi is back to jail again, charged with an offence under the Myanmar’s import and export law. The president Win Mynt under the country’s disaster management law for allegedly breaching the anti-corona virus measures by meeting voters on campaign trail. The new government has said that the government is planned to investigate the alleged fraud in elections. However, is it not very well known that attempts to dress up authoritarian regimes as democracies are always bound to fail? Myanmar’s fall was inevitable.
What happened?
The return of the military rule in Myanmar is nothing new, the international community and the people of the state itself have accustomed with these oscillating edges of democracy. During the years 1962, 1988 and 1990 Generals have taken similar drastic actions to overthrow or derail people’s expressed preferences. The clouded political climate started showing changes since 2010. In 2008 General Than Shwe, who has been ruling the country since 1992, brought in a new constitution which without a doubt remained faithful to the tantrums of the military establishment. General elections were conducted and the military supported Union Solidarity and Development party (USDP) won the elections. The NLD and Suu Kyi rejected the constitution and boycotted the election. In the next five years army loosened its grip on the government and society. It began releasing political prisoners, eased censorship on media, and released Suu Kyi. The NLD, who previously rejected the constitution altered their stand, accepted the constitution and participated in the general elections in 2015. NLD and Ms. Suu Kyi won the election. The devil is in the details, the 2008 constitution brought in by the army had enough provisions to make the transition (dictatorship to democracy) complicated and nearly impossible. According to the constitution of Myanmar, the President must have military experience and he himself or his spouse or children “shall not be subject of a foreign power or citizen of a foreign country.” Ms. Suu Kyi, whose children are British citizens, can now never be president. The constitution also dictates that the defense and interior ministry must continue to be controlled by the military also 25% of seats (166) in parliament be reserved for military, additionally giving it a veto over any move to amend the constitution.
In the 2020 general elections Aung San Suu Kyi’s NLD has won the election by smothering landslides, securing about 80% vote. The junta supported USDP has taken a deafening defeat. The military requires only 167 seats to form the government and won just 33 seats; whereas the NLD requires 333 seats for an outright victory. The popular mandate favored the NLD once again by giving 396 seats. A sweeping majority to form the new Government. Burdened with its own unpopularity and the growing political power of NLD and Suu Kyi collapsed the beleaguered bonhomie. As former Indian Ambassador to Myanmar Mr. Rajiv Bhatia rightly pointed out “discussions to resolve differences failed hence the break up was inevitable.”
What went wrong?
The events that have unfolded in Myanmar the last week reiterates that foreign policy is a realm of surprises and no global leader can anticipate everything that might occur in their watch, they just get to decide how to react!
From March 2016 to November 2020 the NLD shared power with the military, Ms. Suu Kyi who has now been charged with some comically obscure violations and remanded in prison, was then ready to share power with the army. She accepted the constitution and conceded to the demands by junta. Suu Kyi, became popular through her struggle for independence and democracy in Myanmar. Since 2016 the popularity for Mother Suu began to deteriorate. The millions of Rohingya refugees who fled Myanmar owing to well reasons of religious persecution tarnished her fame among the international community. Let’s have a look at some of the fault lines which should have culminated in the unprecedented turn of events.
Firstly, there were two ideologies at war with each other. The army feels greater entitlement for power as it had secured independence, ensured some kind of stability and development and continues to defend its grounds. On the other hand, Suu Kyi is a staunch advocate of democracy though she admired army (which her father established). The differences continued over constitutional reforms, Rohingya crisis and the china policy. In a democracy the army cannot become political, its purpose is to defend and protect not to rule. It is the people of the state having solemnly resolved to exercise their political right to decide who should govern for them, in such a context the military must remain apolitical. Secondly, the army is an apolitical entity in democracy it has no roles unless asked and that they continue to obey the command from the elected head of the state. However, in Myanmar the army was controlling political power and enjoying economic dividends. Thus it does not come easily for the top brass of army in Myanmar, playing second fiddle to democratically elected leader is certainly a difficult role for it.
Ambitions of man has no end. An ambitious ruler will jeopardize the growth and stagnate progressive development. The role of senior Commander in chief General Min Aung Hlaing for the dramatic turn of events is indispensable. The general had expressed suspicion over the election results even before the polls were conducted. The General is due to retire in July this year, presumably the coup guarantees an indefinite extension to the general. What was bound to happen just happened. Nevertheless, the divide between Burmans, the majority group and the ethnic minorities continues to remain wide.
External Voices and Concerns
Myanmar is a Southeast Asian country sandwiched between India and China. Myanmar depends on China for one by third of its trade, the militaries of India and Myanmar are at closer terms. No bonhomie lasts forever, with the changing political environment in Myanmar both India and China are more eager to witness the unfurling of mysteries as both has their own strategic and security imperatives to be realized and developmental and infrastructural projects to be secured and guarded against any kind of external pressures. The West, other nation states and democracies across the world have expressed their disquiet over the events happening in Myanmar.
China remains to be a closer ally to Myanmar in crucial situations. It has stood with the state at the capacity of a permanent member of the Security Council protecting it from any threats of sanctions from major international powers; it considers this coup d’état as adjusting the structural imbalances in power. The Chinese have eschewed from joining the international conscience in condemning the coup by Tatmadaw in Myanmar. China is never hesitant to support and develop proxies which is an additional trait of its own foreign policy. Owing to its distinct geographical features Myanmar finds place in both the Indian and the Chinese strategic doctrines.
Myanmar is India’s gateway to the east. The much appreciated Act East Policy of India identifies the importance of this smaller state’s significance. During the past years India and the Junta came closer, especially in keeping insurgencies and low intensity conflicts at check. However, the Indian approach to Myanmar has changed from past decades. In 1989 there was strong public clamor for India to take actions against the junta and stand in support for Ms. Suu Kyi, but such is not the context presently. The BJP government in India led by Mr. Modi has not shown the heart to criticize the action but expressed a deeply concerned rhetoric. There is a significant lack of pro-democracy discourse in India. The right wing government has discouraged all efforts to attain democracy and happily treading the road to fascism and authoritarianism. As it is known already, authoritarian regimes dress up as democracies are bound to fail. It hasn’t dawned in India yet. The way ahead for India will be to engage, building on its outreach in recent years through the security and defense establishment.
Attempts to override a credible popular mandate by accusing it of electoral fraud is not something very new. On January 6, the U.S. Capitol building was sieged by a group of violent mob comprised of supporters of Mr. Trump. He had alleged an electoral fraud when it was evident that he was at the losing end. Nevertheless, democracy survived and power transition happened dividing the nation into two.
We need to revisit our commitments to democratic values and principles, we need a revolution of kindness. We need a bit more humanity, fewer stones and lathys, less judgment and more heart.