Pro-democracy movement in Burma
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 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 since the military takeover in 1989). 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.[2]
Initial course to democracy
When Burma was liberated by the Allies after World War II, it adopted a parliamentary form of democracy. Despite previous exposure to self-rule that was instituted by the British, albeit limited and divorced from the general populace,[3] democracy in Burma lasted for merely 14 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 British presence in the lowlands contributed further to the perceived divisions between the two groups.[5] The split was most clearly visible during World War II when the Burmans briefly allied with the Japanese before returning to the side of the Allies, whereas the uplands people stayed with the British throughout the war.[6]
The strong ethnic divisions contributed to the social instability that intensified the military's involvement in the political affairs. The British precedent and the internal divisions resulted in the drafting of a very weak constitution that provided autonomy provisions for the minority groups and spurred waves of revolts throughout the country upon its signing in 1958.[7] Prime Minister U Nu authorized a "constitutional coup" by General Ne Win to restore order in preparation for the 1960 general elections. When U Nu resigned in 1962 due to divisions within his party (the Anti-Fascist People's Freedom League), Ne Win seized power through another military coup and established a socialist state under one-party rule.[8] Newin faced little to no opposition or foreign criticism, since his handling of the previous coup was remembered favorably, and the coup appeared to be a genuinely populist and socialist program.[9]
Under Ne Win's rule
In order to justify the coup and win over the populace, Ne Win's regime adopted a very nationalistic and populist rhetoric. The military coup was explained as necessary means of preserving national unity and establishing socialism. Nationalism became an all-encompassing form of discourse and evaluation that portrayed the state as inherently good by its intent alone while ignoring the actual results. Nationalism also served the dual purpose of suppressing minorities and spreading xenophobia. English was no longer permitted as a medium of instruction, and citizens were denied access to various places and institutions if they could not prove their Burmese ancestry back to 1823. Xenophobia was useful in driving out the foreign entrepreneurial class that might economically challenge the state.[10]
The commitment to socialism was portrayed as a populist and nationalistic agenda. It allowed the state to nationalize all aspects of the economy except for agriculture; as a result, Burma's foreign trade was significantly reduced, and its economic status declined from one of the richest countries in Asia and a major rice exporter to a country dependent on food aid.[11]