When Myanmar began its transition to democracy in 2010, it signaled a new hope for democracy in the developing world. Once thought impossible, the release of long-time opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi from house arrest was thought to be the beginning of the end of the brutal military dictatorship which had ruled the area for over half a century. Five years later in 2015, the democratic aspirations of Myanmar were seemingly realized when Aung San Suu Kyi won the presidential election. All appeared to be well for Myanmar. Unfortunately, the current brutal genocide of the Rohingya people at the hands of government troops shatters the hope for a democratic Myanmar. Aung San Suu Kyi’s behavior–discounting of the media, and exclusionary rhetoric-is textbook populism. However, while the president has taken the brunt of international blame for this democratic backslide, the violence against the Rohingya people is not an indication of the breakdown of democracy in Myanmar, but of the pre existing shortcomings of Myanmar’s infant democracy.
After police officers were killed by what the government claimed were Rohingya insurgents in 2016, military troops began a massive campaign of human rights violations in Rohingya villages; crimes included rape, arson, and murder. Aung San Suu Kyi has refused to acknowledge the Rohingya as a minority and avoided addressing the massacres on both domestic and international platforms. However,her reluctance to address the issue is not necessarily a refusal to acknowledge the horrors that Rohingya suffers, but rather an attempt to deny her lack of control over the Myanmar military.
Aung San Suu Kyi no doubt has engaged in populist rhetoric when referring to the Rohingya. Her government has repeatedly referred to the minority as Bengalis, creating a sense of otherness amongst Myanmar citizenry. According to a report done by the International Crisis Group, the idea that Islam is a threat to Myanmar is prevalent throughout major media and mass religious publications. The head of state’s refusal to acknowledge the horror occurring in the remote corners of her country, coupled with dismissal of international concerns only exacerbates an already growing domestic fears of Islam. Her exclusionary rhetoric, calling Rohingya Bengalis and terrorists, paints the Rohingya as violent outsiders, threatening Myanmar’s way of life. By calling Rohingya terrorists she capitalizes on the already present fears of the Islam in Myanmar. Aung San Suu Kyi’s exclusionary rhetoric serves to reinforce populist ideology in Myanmar and paints the Rohingya as the source, rather than the victims, of ethnic violence in the Rakhine state.
Aung San Suu Kyi’s claims of fake news invalidates international concerns of ethnic cleansing and reinforces her moral authority as a leader domestically. In her UN address on the issue, Aung San Suu Kyi’s speech was speckled with half-truths about the state of affairs for Muslims in Myanmar according to The Guardian’s fact check. Yet, while the leader of Myanmar claims that international observers have been misinformed, it is, in fact, the Myanmar public that has suffered at the hands of false news. She has claimed an “iceberg of misinformation” abroad about the crisis in the Rakhine state. While her claims have been discounted abroad, her claim has been fully believed by the Myanmar people. International insistence that Suu Kyi take action has only further cemented her status as a moral hero to the Myanmar people. Not only Myanmar’s citizen’s that the violence in the Rakhine state has been vastly overblown, ethnic violence is nowhere near the top of Myanmar’s citizens political concerns with only 12% of polled citizens citing ethnic conflict as a reason the country is headed in the wrong direction (Survey of Myanmar/Burma Public Opinion). Since her electorate has no interest in the issue of the Rakhine state she has no need, politically, to address the genocide being conducted by the military.
Addressing the genocide and her lack of control over the military also weakens her position as the leader of Myanmar. While she is the political leader, the Constitution still grants ultimate authority to the military. Acknowledging the genocide shatters the illusion of democracy in Myanmar. While Aung San Suu Kyi is not a political puppet by any means, her inability to exercise control over the military attacks on Rohingya demonstrates that Myanmar is not nearly democratic as thought previous to the genocide. Addressing this reality only harms her political position both domestically and internationally.
Aung San Suu Kyi’s reluctance to address the genocide in the Rakhine state highlights a painful reality. While she was elected fairly and is the political leader of Myanmar, constitutionally a majority of the power in Myanmar resides with the military. The violence against Rohingya is simply a continuation of a historic discriminatory campaign by the military junta in Myanmar. While the violence has never escalated to the level of 2016 previously, there is a history of government discrimination against the ROhingya since the military coup in 1962. WHile past provisions have included national registration cards and denial of citizenship, violence was the rule of the military junta, and the displacement of Rohingya is not a new development. The 2016 genocide is simply a more extreme expression of the campaign of violence the Rohingya have been subjugated to by the Myanmar military.
While Aung San Suu Kyi has expressed thoughts that echo the rhetoric of her populist peers, the violence in the Rakhine state is more a manifestation of the fragmentation of democracy that has existed in Myanmar from the beginning rather than an active governmental ethnic cleansing. Rather than actively wiping out the Rohingya, Aung San Suu Kyi cannot control the military and limit its power–a sign that democracy never truly existed in Myanmar.
Works Cited:
Al Jazeera. (2018, February 05). Myanmar: Who are the Rohingya? Retrieved March 16, 2018, from https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2017/08/rohingya-muslims-170831065142812.html
From dictatorship to democracy in Myanmar. (2015, November 13). Retrieved March 16, 2018, from https://www.ft.com/content/0472fd30-8a03-11e5-9f8c-a8d619fa707c
Hunt, K. (2017, November 13). Rohingya crisis: How we got here. Retrieved March 16, 2018, from https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/12/asia/rohingya-crisis-timeline/index.html
Hunt, K. (2017, September 20). How Myanmar’s Buddhists actually feel about the Rohingya. Retrieved March 16, 2018, from https://www.cnn.com/2017/09/19/asia/myanmar-yangon-rohingya-buddhists/index.html
Mohdin, A. (2017, October 02). A brief history of the word “Rohingya” at the heart of a humanitarian crisis. Retrieved March 16, 2018, from https://qz.com/1092313/a-brief-history-of-the-word-rohingya-at-the-heart-of-a-humanitarian-crisis/
The Rakhine State Danger to Myanmar’s Transition. (2017, September 12). Retrieved March 16, 2018, from https://www.crisisgroup.org/asia/south-east-asia/myanmar/rakhine-state-
danger-myanmars-transition
Survey of Myanmar/Burma Public Opinion (March 9-April 1 2017) [Scholarly project]. (2017, August 25). In Center for Insights on Survey Research. Retrieved March 15, 2018. From http://www.iri.org/sites/default/files/8.25.2017_burma_public_poll.pdf
Tarabay, J. (2017, December 06). Myanmar’s military: The power Aung San Suu Kyi can’t control. Retrieved March 16, 2018, from https://www.cnn.com/2017/09/21/asia/myanmar-military-the-real-power/index.htm
Timeline: Reforms in Myanmar. (2015, July 08). Retrieved March 16, 2018, from http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-16546688
Photo Source:
Vatsavanyan, Mana (Photographer). (2017, September 6). Ethnic Rohingya Muslim refugees hold placards and shout slogans during a protest against the persecution of Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar [digital image]. Retrieved from https://www.politico.eu/article/desperate-rohingya-myanmar-need-european-friends/
How ironic it is seeing Aung San Suu Kyi, someone who has suffered in the hands of oppressors fighting for democracy in her country. Having won the nobel prize for peace, and now she is not able to advocate for peace in her country, despite being in a position to actually do that. Her election was a demonstration of new beginnings for Myanmar. However, her inaction in the genocide of the Rohingya Muslims definitely shows the world who she truly is.
I largely agree with the argument presented in this piece: that the conventional wisdom – that Myanmar has managed a transition to democracy and that the Rohingya genocide in Rakhine state represents significant backsliding from democracy – is overblown.
Katrina shows that while Myanmar has liberalized considerably (i.e. opened up some space for wider political and economic participation), this does not necessarily mean that it has democratized. While Aung San Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy control the majority of seats in Myanmar’s parliament, the Tatmadaw and its generals continue to be the dominant force in Myanmar politics. As Katrina argues, this democratic deficit shows in the continuing refusal of the government to be held accountable at home and abroad for the continuing massacre of the Rohingya people; Suu Kyi’s populist representations that the Rohingya, despite having lived in Rakhine for generations, are not part of Myanmar’s national races (taingyintha) and thus not citizens of Myanmar; and her antipathy towards intervening on their behalf.
Perhaps the piece could have benefited more from relating the Myanmar government’s antipathy towards addressing the genocide to the institutional arrangements that emerged since Myanmar liberalized in the first half of the 2010s. While it is clear from the piece that the military remain powerful actors in Myanmar, it is not as clearly explained how this power is exerted on Suu Kyi and her government. Suu Kyi and the NLD negotiated an arrangement with the Tatmadaw that ensured they enter government while retaining military control over key sectors of the economy and veto power over key political decisions. This would have given the reader a more compelling account of how Aung San Suu Kyi, despite her immense moral capital, presides over a government that is either unwilling or heavily constrained to stop genocide.
It is true that Myanmar as a democracy is in its infancy stage after decades of military rule. It is grappling with the transition period a little by little with varied challenges, especially with Rohingya crisis, which is termed as the United Nations’ top human rights official slammed Myanmar for conducting a “cruel military operation” against Rohingya Muslims in Rakhine state, and branding it “a textbook example of ethnic cleansing.” But the hopes are too high for Aung San Suu Kyi, the ipso facto leader or state councilor, as she enjoyed a great clout (populism) for having won the Noble Laureate and other awards as recognition of her demand for democracy restoration in the country and winning the election in 2010 with a majority.
In the light of junta-drafted country’s Constitution, she has no full control over the military which has been sphere heading the genocide against the Rohingya Muslims from Rakhine State since 2016. Consequently, over 700,000 Rohingyas have fled from Myanmar to Bangladesh and more than 400,000 of the minority largely Muslim group are living in “dire” conditions at home. Their rights are severely compromised. They are obstructed from accessing to health, livelihoods, protection, education, and other essential services. Their movements are restricted that prevents them from going to hospitals and schools.
Unable to tame and control the military under the current constitutional provisions, and address adequately the Rohingya crisis, Aung San Suu Kyi is sitting on the fence, for which, she has faced despicable international criticism. These two sensitive positions make her unable to exercise the democratic power in a most suitable manner.
Given the fact, Rohingya issue is a deep-seated constitutional discrimination. For decades, Rohingyas are unwanted in the country as it has refused to grant them national identity cards or granting them full citizenship with due registration. Thus they remain as aliens for decades. It was a historical neglect and racial description towards them, to say a least, often seen with a religious lens as they are Muslims, who came to Myanmar from Bangladesh or elsewhere.
I do agree with Katrina as she said, “While Aung San Suu Kyi has expressed thoughts that echo the rhetoric of her populist peers, the violence in the Rakhine state is more a manifestation of the fragmentation of democracy that has existed in Myanmar from the beginning rather than an active governmental ethnic cleansing. Rather than actively wiping out the Rohingya, Aung San Suu Kyi cannot control the military and limit its power–a sign that democracy never truly existed in Myanmar.” In other words, a way forward for Aung San Suu Kyi is to control the military first, for which the Constitution should be re-written or amended first, which is not so easy given the current state of the democratic situation in the country. If that does not happen, the Rohingya crisis is going stay here or who knows it may still escalate further from the current state of the events. And Myanmar’s infancy democracy can be in great peril in the long run, as there is always a possibility that military would recapture the political power at any time, and democratic erosion in the fullest sense may be imminent. So what Katrina in her essay argued seems to be true: ‘Is Myanmar experiencing democratic erosion or democratic illusion?’
Meanwhile, as an intermediary measure, Aung San Suu Kyi needs to work tirelessly towards ending the violence, of stability and peace and reconciliation on one hand, and address the humanitarian needs and the protection needs that are across the whole country, especially those of the Rohingyas, amidst many democratic constraints and challenges.
I agree with your analysis that the violence against the Rohingya people that is being perpetrated by the Myanmar government suggests massive shortcomings in Myanmar’s democratic evolution; furthermore, I also agree that it is difficult to even classify Myanmar’s political system as democratic in any way, considering Freedom House only classified the country as “Partly Free” in 2017, with internet and press freedom remaining “Not Free.” The military has been at the helm of some of the country’s worst violence against the Rohingya population, one of a number of Muslim communities in Myanmar with a complicated history. The harsh persecution of the population, as you note, is not new to Aung San Suu Kyi’s government but is the continuation of discriminatory policies first implemented under junta rule.
You also make the point that the military still maintains ultimate authority in the Constitution, despite elections and political leaders, and that this military authority constrains the ability of Aung San Suu Kyi, who is not even constitutionally permitted to be the president but holds power in the country as a “state counsellor,” to prevent violence from occurring. While this may be technically true, I question how much action she has actively taken to publicly deride the military’s campaign against the Rohingya population in Rakhine State. Her blanket denial of the ethnic cleansing taking place, coupled with her refusal to cooperate with international authorities, suggests at the very least a toleration of the violent campaign.
Though you correctly note that Aung San Suu Kyi has echoed the rhetoric of right-wing nationalism, I hesitate to call it populism as per the definition provided by Jan-Werner Muller, who identifies it as a brand of anti-pluralist identity politics that frames opposition to political elites and minorities in a moralistic light. I believe that more than populism, her rhetoric reflects her desire to remain popular among the Buddhist Bamar majority by appealing to their right-wing nationalist pride and casting the Rohingya minority as an existential threat. She has been, somewhat rightly so, pilloried by the international media for her seeming hypocrisy in seeking international attention for her campaign for democracy and human rights while turning a blind eye, once in a position of leadership, to the plight of a persecuted ethnic minority that is being slaughtered before her eyes. If democracy in Myanmar is characterized by the resolute silence of a formerly outspoken leader during a campaign of anti-Islamic ethnic cleansing of a Muslim minority, then your point – that “democracy never truly existed in Myanmar” – is accurate.
In this article, I think that democracy is both eroding and an illusion. It is eroding because the citizens are not fully free to express themselves in their own country and if they do, it comes with a price— their lives. The human rights and civil movements are limitedly practice and could be in jeopardy because of how the government reacts to issues being opened by the civil society. Myanmar also has a democratic illusion because it seems that democracy proclaimed in 2010 is still being played, as not entirely true. The Aung San Suu Kyi leadership is just a face for the international community to give an impression that Myanmar is finally a democratic and free country even though, it is still being dictated by her military colleagues in the government.
Myanmar, as we all know is one of the diverse country in Asia. Rohingyas reside within the Rakhine state. In Martin Smith’s work Ethnic Groups in Burma shows that “even during the British occupation in Burma, those who reside in Rakhine state always have ethnic difficulties due to their geographical position. They are within the borders of India and Bangladesh. There are also mixed civilizations of Buddhists and Islam.” (Smith, 1994) who used to live together peacefully.
I think what the current government of Myanmar must do, First, is to accept that their country has a diverse culture. Promoting monoculturalism does not represent in any way, as it only result to a backsliding democracy as people are so constrained in expressing their own identity, their views which also affects lives. This is something a government cannot control.
Second, mass media is a very powerful tool. However, it seems that it promotes polarization as it shows propaganda on the dangers of Islam while in Burma’s previous years, the buddhists and muslims used to live a harmonious life, based on the work of Martin Smith. This leads me to question on the credibility of media if they are not really influenced by the Myanmar
government.