4 ms·
It's a delicate transition even when the civilians have actual full authority over the government (see: South Africa, or worse yet, Zimbabwe). But when Myanmar
by stult 8y ago
It's a delicate transition even when the civilians have actual full authority over the government (see: South Africa, or worse yet, Zimbabwe). But when Myanmar transitioned to the free elections which put Suu Kyi in power, the military specifically reserved a significant minority of seats in the legislature and maintained constitutionally-guaranteed independence from the civilian government.
On top of that, the military had been the only functional institution in Myanmar for over 50 years. During that time, there was no real court system, no free media, no private industry, and no significant educational institutions. Even before the military took over, the majority of the colonial government bureaucracy consisted of Indians that the British brought in with them, the vast majority of whom left with the British, gutting civilian institutions. The military controlled every aspect of everyone's lives. Their retreat from total control left an enormous institutional vacuum, with Buddhist monasteries left as the only nearly national stable institution (which has fed tensions with minority Muslim ethnic groups).
When I was working there a few years ago, people barely knew what the laws were for creating a corporation. No one knew how to verify who owned what land. The military suddenly allowed free press for the first time since the 1960s, and immediately a plethora of dubious publications sprung up to compete with the hilariously inaccurate government-run propaganda rag, the Light of Myanmar. People just weren't equipped to evaluate journalistic quality yet. So fundamental elements of a free society just weren't in place.
And the population was in many ways unprepared for democracy. Atrocious education and decades of propaganda make it difficult to rationally exercise democratic authority. Particularly when there are strong ethnic tensions, because the majority tends to abuse their authority to the detriment of the minority. Hence the ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya.
So Suu Kyi is left in a tenuous position. She can't allow dissent within her own party without risking fragmentation and a loss to a military-centric coalition. She can't let her own party run wild without risking unfettered ethnic cleansing and a military backlash/coup if their special privileges are revoked.
This latest move is disheartening for many reasons, but more than anything it is evidence of just how desperate the situation in Myanmar really is, despite whatever brief optimism grew out of the nation's partial democratization.
- majos 8y agoI can acknowledge that Suu Kyi's position forces ugly compromises, but I don't see how she her or her party really needs to jail journalists. Especially when 1. this article claims that the offense is criticism of her, and 2. as you mention, public trust in journalism seems low anyway. At any rate, are we even sure that this is the work of Suu Kyi's faction? It would be a pretty fiendish move for the military to suppress free speech and make it look like Suu Kyi's work, since (as we see here) it would weaken her status with the west. But I have no idea how to verify something like that.