Myanmar is more like a managed democracy
https://arab.news/y2fmk
Myanmar is preparing to go to the polls for the third time since it implemented its 2008 constitution. That new constitution was meant to ensure a transition toward a full democracy in the country, but instead Myanmar looks more and more like a “managed democracy” in the style of Russia or Turkey. The main culprit is the former pro-democracy movement, the National League for Democracy (NLD), led by Aung San Suu Kyi.
To have a democracy means that every individual should be able to express themselves politically, that the law and the political culture allows for, and indeed fosters, a plurality of opinions and points of view, that political parties do not have guaranteed monopolies over government institutions, and that party elites can be replaced by their members. Little of this is in evidence in Myanmar at the moment.
Some of this is not new. The 2008 constitution guaranteed a portion of parliamentary seats to military representatives, which thus function as a continuation of the previous military junta. Since the NLD victory in the general election in late 2015, that part has become functionally irrelevant as the NLD enjoys a large and unassailable majority in parliament.
The much more consequential part is the fact that all aspects of government to do with defense, internal security, and foreign affairs remain squarely and explicitly in the hands of the military. For this reason, the military had the constitutional authority to carry out its “clearance operations” against the Rohingya in the 2016-17 period, and is also why it can continue to wage war on a number of other border ethnic groups.
The military and the NLD have carved between themselves a duopoly into which they do not tolerate any outside encroachment.
Dr. Azeem Ibrahim
What is new is that the NLD civilian government has, for the past four-and-a-half years, explicitly abandoned democratic notions such as that all individuals should have access to political representation. It has endorsed ethnic cleansing and genocide against the Rohingya, and has, within its authority, systematically eliminated the franchise for all but a handful of Rohingya — not a case of people choosing their politicians, but rather a case of politicians choosing even who “the people” are.
This is somewhat similar to the efforts to disenfranchise millions of Muslim citizens in India, for example, but even more extreme, unapologetic, and thorough. Indeed, there is no clearer case of targeted disenfranchisement anywhere in the world at the moment. And it is brought to you by a “pro-democracy” movement.
Another pillar of the new political establishment in Myanmar is government control of the media. This is much more recognizable in places such as Russia or Hungary but even more explicit.
The civilian government of the NLD inherited the media control structures of the military juntas. Rather than let such an asset go to waste, the NLD has decided to use it instead to shore up its own power base, and marginalize and delegitimize any other democratic party or, indeed, any other movement in the country. So the Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP), which represents the interests of the military, is an acceptable party and the NLD is the only other acceptable party, and the sole claimant to the “democracy” label.
In this manner, the military and the NLD have carved between themselves a duopoly into which they do not tolerate any outside encroachment. They do contest some parts of the government administration among themselves, but they both agree that no further democracy is necessary or desirable.
In this way the military has, in effect, achieved what it set out to do in the 2008 constitution: It has captured and assimilated the pro-democracy movement into the structures of government it ultimately controls, and effectively eliminated an existential threat from actual democracy.
The NLD’s job now is to manage this “democracy” for the duopoly, and it seems only too happy to do so. The NLD is expected to once again dominate the results of the upcoming election.
- Dr. Azeem Ibrahim is a director at the Center for Global Policy in Washington, D.C.
Twitter: @AzeemIbrahim
