Pro-democracy movement in Burma: Difference between revisions
imported>Chunbum Park No edit summary |
imported>Chunbum Park |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
== Initial course to democracy == | == Initial course to democracy == | ||
When Burma was liberated by the Allies after World War II, it adopted a parliamentary democracy,<ref name="nytimes03172010">''NYT'', March 17, 2010</ref> which lasted for fourteen years from 1948 to 1962. Burma as a democratic state was not viable from the onset | When Burma was liberated by the Allies after World War II, it adopted a parliamentary form of democracy,<ref name="nytimes03172010">''NYT'', March 17, 2010</ref> which lasted for fourteen years from 1948 to 1962. Burma as a democratic state was not viable from the onset due to its diversity and the colonial legacies. The country is in fact one of the most diverse countries in Asia. It has 135 different ethnicities, including 8 major groups.<ref name="unity383">Holliday, 2007: 383</ref> During the period of British occupation in the 19th and early 20th centuries, these divisions were exploited by the colonial policies. The British separately administered the majority lowlands and the minority uplands, subjecting the former to direct rule while providing relative autonomy to the latter. The minorities were favored in the colonial administration as support against the majority, which resulted in the creation of educated local elites in the autonomous upland regions who would compete with the traditional elites of the lowlands. The cultural differences that resulted with the greater westernization of the lowlands and the retainment of traditions in the uplands further reinforced the perceived divisions between the two groups. <ref name="thomson272-3">Thomson, 1995: 272-273</ref> | ||
=== notes === | === notes === | ||
{{reflist}} | {{reflist}} | ||
Revision as of 10:08, 22 March 2010
The pro-democracy movement in Burma began in opposition to Ne Win’s military regime in the 1980s. Although Burma had a functioning parliamentary democracy by the late 1950s, internal divisions at the top of the leadership brought about instability that allowed Ne Win to seize power in a military coup in 1962. A series of protests and escalating violence led to Ne Win’s resignation and replacement by Saw Maung in 1988. With martial law imposed and order restored, the country held a multiparty election in May 1990, in which the National League for Democracy led by Aung San Suu Kyi won a landslide victory. The military regime refused to transfer power to the NLD, however, and kept Suu Kyi under house arrest, where she had been since the previous year.
Suu Kyi had become a prominent leading figure in the movement due to her winning the Nobel Peace Prize in 1991 and being continually subjected to intermittent house arrests by the government in Myanmar (its official name for the country). She has had considerable degree of contact with Western governments,[1] which have continued to advocate for her release and place sanctions on the Myanmar regime.
In March, the Myanmar government officially annulled the results of the previous election, citing inconsistency with its current laws. It plans to hold an election sometime later this year for the first time since 1990.[2]
Initial course to democracy
When Burma was liberated by the Allies after World War II, it adopted a parliamentary form of democracy,[3] which lasted for fourteen years from 1948 to 1962. Burma as a democratic state was not viable from the onset due to its diversity and the colonial legacies. The country is in fact one of the most diverse countries in Asia. It has 135 different ethnicities, including 8 major groups.[4] During the period of British occupation in the 19th and early 20th centuries, these divisions were exploited by the colonial policies. The British separately administered the majority lowlands and the minority uplands, subjecting the former to direct rule while providing relative autonomy to the latter. The minorities were favored in the colonial administration as support against the majority, which resulted in the creation of educated local elites in the autonomous upland regions who would compete with the traditional elites of the lowlands. The cultural differences that resulted with the greater westernization of the lowlands and the retainment of traditions in the uplands further reinforced the perceived divisions between the two groups. [5]