Suu Kyi's Manila Speech: Re-post

[darnott@xxxxxxxxxxx]

FREE SUU KYI, FREE BURMA and the Burma Peace Foundation are re-
posting this important speech by Aung San Suu Kyi as a reminder
of some of Suu Kyi's ideas on political, economic and cultural
development.
 
 
            EMPOWERMENT FOR A CULTURE OF PEACE AND DEVELOPMENT
 
                            by Aung San Suu Kyi
 
[Address to a meeting of the World Commission on Culture and 
Development, Manila, 21 November 1994, to be presented on behalf
of the author at her request by Mrs Corazon Aquino.]
 
 
At its third meeting held at San Jose, Costa Rica, 22-26 February
1994, the World Commission on Culture and Development set itself
three  goals, the third of which was "to promote a new cultural
dynamic: the culture of peace and culture of development". The
Commission undertook to "endeavour to recommend the concrete
measures that could promote, on a national and international
scale, a culture of peace" and went on to state that:
 
     "a culture of peace, culture of democracy and culture
     of  human rights are indivisible. Their effective 
     implementation must result in a democratic management
     and ... the prevention of intercultural conflicts."[1]
     
Peace as a goal is an ideal which will not be contested by any
government or nation, not even the most belligerent. And the
close interdependence of the culture of peace and the culture of
development also finds ready acceptance. But it remains a matter
of uncertainty how far governments are prepared to concede that
democracy and human rights are indivisible from the culture of
peace and therefore essential to sustained development. There is
ample evidence that culture and development can actually be made
to serve as pretexts for resisting calls for democracy and  human
rights. It is widely known that some governments argue that 
democracy is a western concept alien to indigenous values; it has
also  been asserted that economic development often conflicts
with political  (i.e. democratic) rights and that the second
should necessarily give way to  the first. In the light of such
arguments culture and development need to  be carefully examined
and defined that they may not be used, or rather,  misused, to
block the aspirations of peoples for democratic institutions  and
human rights. 
 
The unsatisfactory record of development in many parts of the
world and  the ensuing need for a definition of development which
means more than  mere economic growth became a matter of vita
concern to economists and  international agencies more than a
decade ago.[2] In A New Concept of  Development, published in
1983, Francois Perroux stated that: 
     "Development has not taken place: it represents a
     dramatic growth of awareness, a promise, a matter of
     survival indeed; intellectually, however, it is still
     only dimly perceived."[3] 
    
Later, in the same book, he asserted that: 
     
     "... personal development, the freedom of persons
     fulfilling their potential in the context of the values
     to which they subscribe and which they experience in
     their actions, is one of the mainsprings of all forms
     of development." [4]
      
His concept of development therefore gives a firm place to human 
and  cultural values within any scheme for progress, economic or
otherwise.  The United Nations Development Programme too began to
spell out the  difference between growth and development in the
1980s.[5] With the  beginning of the 1990s the primacy of the
human aspect of development  was acknowledged by the UNDP with
the publication of its first Human  Development Report. And the
special focus of the 1993 Report was  people's participation,
seen as "the central issue of our time".[6] 
 
While the concept of human development is beginning to assume a 
dominant position in the thinking of international economists and
administrators, the Market Economy, not merely adorned with
capital  letters but seen in an almost mystic haze, is
increasingly regarded by many governments as the quick and
certain way to material prosperity. Itis assumed that economic
measures can resolve all the problems facing their countries.
Economics is described as the "deus ex machina, the most 
important key to every lock of every door to the new Asia we wish
to see"; and "healthy economic development" is seen as 
 
     "... essential to successfully meeting the challenge of
     peace security, the challenge of human rights and
     responsibilities, the challenge of democracy and the
     rule of law, the challenge of social justice and reform
     and the challenge of cultural renaissance and
     pluralism."[7]
     
The view that economic development is essential to peace, human
rights, democracy and cultural pluralism, and the view that a
culture of peace, democracy and human rights is essential to
sustained human development, many seem on the surface to differ
only in the matter of approach. But a closer investigation
reveals that the difference in  approach itself implies
differences of a more fundamental order. When  economics is
regarded as "the most important key to every lock of every door"
it is only natural that the worth of man should come to be
decided largely, even wholly, by his effectiveness as an
economic tool.[8]
 
This is  at variance with the vision of a world where economic,
political and  social institutions work to serve man instead of
the other way round; where culture and development coalesce to
create an environment in  which human potential can be realized
to the full. The differing views ultimately reflect differences
in how the valuation of the various  components of the social
and national entity are made; how such basic  concepts as
poverty, progress, culture, freedom, democracy and human  rights
are defined and, of crucial importance, who has the power to 
determine such values and definitions. 
 
The value systems of those with access to power and of those far
removed  from such access cannot be the same. The viewpoint of
the privileged is  unlike that of the underprivileged. In the
matter of power and privilege  the difference between the haves
and the have-nots is not merely  quantitative, for it has
far-reaching psychological and ideological implications. And
many "economic" concerns are seldom just that, since they are
tied up with questions of power and privilege. The problem of 
poverty provides an example of the inadequacy of a purely
economic approach to a human situation. Even those who take a
down-to-earth view of basic human needs agree that:
 
     "... whatever doctors, nutritionists, and other
     scientists may say about the objective conditions of
     deprivation, how the poor themselves perceive their
     deprivation is also relevant."[9] 
       
The alleviation of poverty thus entails setting in motion
processes which  can change the perceptions of all those
concerned. Here power and  privilege come into play:
 
     "The poor are powerless and have no voice. Power is the
     responsibility of expressing and imposing one's will in
     a given social relationship, in the face of any
     resistance. The poor are incapable of either imposing,
     coercing or, in many cases, having any influence at
     all."[10]
       
It is not enough merely to provide the poor with material
assistance. They  have to be sufficiently empowered to change
their perception of  themselves as helpless and ineffectual in
an uncaring world. 
 
The question of empowerment is central to both culture and
development.  It decides who has the means of imposing on a
nation or society their  view of what constitutes culture and
development and who determines  what practical measures can be
taken in the name of culture and  development. The more
totalitarian a system the more power will be  concentrated in
the hands of the ruling elite and the more culture and 
development will be used to serve narrow interests. Culture has
been  defined as "the most recent, the most highly developed
means of  promoting the security and continuity of life".[11] 
 
Culture thus defined is dynamic and broad, the emphasis is on
its flexible, non-compelling  qualities. But when it is bent to
serve narrow interests it becomes static and rigid, its
exclusive aspects come to the fore and it assumes coercive 
overtones. The "national culture" can become a bizarre graft of
carefully  selected historical incidents and distorted social
values intended to justify the policies and actions of those in
power.[12] At the same time  development is likely to be seen in
the now outmoded sense of economic  growth. Statistics, often
unverifiable, are reeled off to prove the success  of official
measures.
 
Many authoritarian governments wish to appear in the forefront
of modern progress but are reluctant to institute genuine
change. Such  governments tend to claim that they are taking a
uniquely national or indigenous path towards a political system
in keeping with the times. In  the decades immediately after the
Second World War socialism was the  popular option. But
increasingly since the 1980s democracy has gained ground. The
focus on a national or indigenous way to socialism or democracy
has: 
 
     "... the effect of stressing cultural continuity as
     both process and goals; this in turn obviates the
     necessity of defining either democracy or socialism in
     institutionally or procedurally specific terms; and
     finally, it elevates the existing political elite to
     the indispensable position of final arbiter and
     interpreter of what does or does not contribute to the
     preservation of cultural integrity".[13]
     
It is often in the name of cultural integrity as well as social
stability and  national security that democratic reforms based
on human rights are  resisted by authoritarian governments. It
is insinuated that some of the worst ills of western society are
the result of democracy, which is seen as  the progenitor of
unbridled freedom and selfish individualism. It is claimed,
usually without adequate evidence, that democratic values and 
human rights run counter to the national culture, and therefore
to be beneficial they need to be modified -- perhaps to the
extent that they are barely recognizable. The people are said to
be as yet unfit for democracy, therefore an indefinite length of
time has to pass before democratic  reforms can be instituted.
 
The first form of attack is often based on the premise, so
universally accepted that it is seldom challenged or even
noticed, that the United  States of America is the supreme
example of democratic culture. What tends to be overlooked is
that although the USA is certainly the most important
representative of democratic culture, it also represents many 
other cultures, often intricately enmeshed. Among these are the
"I-want- it-all" consumer culture, megacity culture, superpower
culture, frontier culture, immigrant culture. There is also a
strong media culture which constantly exposes the myriad
problems of American society, from large ssues such as street
violence and drug abuse to the matrimonial difficulties of minor
celebrities. Many of the worst ills of American  society,
increasingly to be found in varying degrees in other developed 
countries, can be traced not to the democratic legacy but to the
demands of modern materialism. Gross individualism and cut-
throat morality arise when political and intellectual freedoms
are curbed on the one hand, while on the other, fierce economic
competitiveness is encouraged by making material success the
measure of prestige and progress. The result is a society where
cultural and human values are set aside and money value reigns
supreme. No political or social system is perfect. But could 
such a powerful and powerfully diverse nation as the United
States have  been prevented from disintegrating if it had not
been sustained by democratic institutions guaranteed by a
constitution based on the assumption that man's capacity for
reason and justice makes free government possible and that his
capacity for passion and injustices  makes it necessary?[14]
 
It is precisely because of the cultural diversity of the world
that it is  necessary for different nations and peoples to agree
on those basic human values which will act as a unifying factor.
When democracy and human rights are said to run counter to non-
western culture, such culture is  usually defined narrowly and
presented as monolithic. In fact the values that democracy and
human rights seek to promote can be found in many cultures.
Human beings the world over need freedom and security that they
may be able to realize their full potential. The longing for a
form of governance that provides security without destroying
freedom goes back a long way.[15] Support for the desirability
of strong government and  dictatorship can also be found in all
cultures, both eastern and western:  the desire to dominate and
the tendency to adulate the powerful are also common human
traits arising out of a desire for security. A nation may 
choose a system that leaves the protection of the freedom and
security of  the many dependent on the inclinations of the
empowered few; or it may choose institutions and practices that
will sufficiently empower individuals and organizations to
protect their own freedom and security. The choice will decide
how far a nation will progress along the road to  peace and
human development.[16]
 
Many of the countries in the third world now striving for
meaningful  development are multiracial societies where there is
one dominant racial  group and a number -- sometimes a large
number -- of smaller groups: foreign, religious or ethnic
minorities. As poverty can no longer be  defined satisfactorily
in terms of basic economic needs, "minority" can  no longer be
defined merely in terms of numbers. For example, it has been
noted in a study of minorities in Burmese history that: 
 
     "In the process of nation-building ... the notion of
     minority in urma changed, as one group defines itself
     as a nation those outside the group become minorities
     ... There were, of course, minorities in traditional
     Burma -- people close to the power elite who considered
     themselves superior and people estranged from the power
     elite who were considered inferior. These criteria for
     establishing majorities (who might in fact be a small
     portion of the population as, say, white people in
     South Africa today) were not based on  race or even 
     ethnic group, but on access to power. Minorities, thus,
     are those people with poor access to power."[17] 
       
Once again, as in the case of poverty, it is ultimately a
question of empowerment. The provision of basic material needs
is not sufficient to  make minority groups and indigenous
peoples feel they are truly part of  the greater national
entity. For that they have to be confident that they too  have
an active role to play in shaping the destiny of the state that 
demands their allegiance. Poverty degrades a whole society and
threatens its stability while ethnic conflict and minority
discontent are two of the greatest threats to both internal and
regional peace. And when the  dispossessed "minority" is in fact
an overwhelming majority, as happens  in countries where power
is concentrated in the hands of the few, the  threat to peace
and stability is ever present even if unperceived. 
 
The Commission for a New Asia notes that:
 
     " ... the most rapid economic transformation is most
     likely to succeed within the context of international
     peace and internal political stability, in the presence
     of social tranquillity, public order and an enlightened
     and strong government; and in the absence of societal
     turbulence and disorder."[18]
     
This comment highlights the link between economic, political and
social concerns. But there is a danger that it could be 
interpreted to imply that peace, stability and public order are
desirable only as conditions for facilitating economic
transformation rather than as ends in themselves.  Such an
interpretation would distort the very meaning of peace and 
security. It could also be used to justify strong, even if
unenlightened,  government and any authoritarian measures such
as a government may take in the name of public order.[19]
 
If material betterment, which is but a means to human happiness,
is  sought in ways that wound the human spirit, it can in the
long run only  lead to greater human suffering. The vast
possibilities that a market economy can open to developing
countries can be realized only if  economic reforms are
undertaken within a framework that recognizes  human needs. The
Human Development Report makes the point that markets should
serve people instead of people serving markets. Further: 
 
     "... both state and market should be guided by the
     people. The two should work in tandem, and people
     should be sufficiently empowered to exert effective
     control over both."[20]
     
Again we come back to empowerment. It decides how widespread
will be the benefit of actions taken in the name of culture and
development. And  this in turn will decide the extent of the
contribution such actions can  make to genuine peace and
stability. Democracy as a political system  which aims at
empowering the people is essential if sustained human 
development, which is "development of the people for the people
by the  people", is to be achieved. Thus it has been rightly
said that: 
 
     "National governments must find new ways of enabling
     their people to participate more in government and to
     allow them much greater influence on the decisions that
     affect their lives. Unless this is done, and done in
     time, the irresistible tide of peoples rising
     aspirations will inevitably clash with inflexible
     systems, leading to anarchy and chaos. A rapid
     democratic transition and a strengthening of the
     institutions  of civil society are the only appropriate
     responses".[21] 
     
The argument that it took long years for the first democratic
governments  to develop in the west is not a valid excuse for
African and Asian  countries to drag their feet over democratic
reform. The history of the  world shows that peoples and
societies do not have to pass through a  fixed series of stages
in the course of development. Moreover, latecomers  should be
able to capitalize on the experiences of the pioneers and avoid 
the mistakes and obstacles that impeded early progress. The idea
of "making haste slowly" is sometimes used to give backwardness
the appearance of measured progress. But in a fast developing
world too  much emphasis on "slowly" can be a recipe for
disaster.
 
There will be as many kinds of democracies as there are nations
which  accept it as a form of government. No single type of
"western democracy" exists; nor is democracy limited to a mere
handful of forms such as the American, British, French or Swiss.
Each democratic country will have its own individual character-
istics. With the spread of democracy to  Eastern Europe the
variety in the democratic style of government will increase.
Similarly there cannot be one form of Asian democracy; in each 
country the democracy system will develop a character that
accords with its social, cultural and economic needs. But the
basic requirement of a genuine democracy is that the people
should be sufficiently empowered to be able to participate
significantly in the governance of their country.  The thirty
articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are aimed
at such empowerment. Without these rights democratic
institutions will be but empty shells incapable of reflecting
the aspirations of the people and unable to withstand the
encroachment of authoritarianism. 
 
The democracy process provides for political and social change
without violence. The democracy tradition of free discussion and
debate allows for the settlement of differences without resort
to armed conflict. The  culture of democracy and human rights
promotes diversity and dynamism  without disintegration; it is
indivisible from the culture of development  and the culture of
peace. It is only by giving firm support to movements that seek
to empower the people through democratic means that the United
Nations and its agencies will truly be able to promote the
culture of peace and the culture of development.
 
                        ***
 
Let me in conclusion summarize my argument. The true development
of  human beings involves much more than mere economic growth.
At its  heart there must be a sense of empowerment and inner
fulfillment. This  alone will ensure that human and cultural
values remain paramount in a world where political leadership is
often synonymous with tyranny and  the rule of a narrow elite.
People's participation in social and political transformation is
the central issue of our time. This can only be achieved through
the establishment of societies which place human worth above 
power, and liberation above control. In this paradigm,
development requires democracy, the genuine empowerment of the
people. When this is achieved, culture and development will
naturally coalesce to create an  environment in which all are
valued, and every kind of human potential can be realised. The
alleviation of poverty involves processes which  change the way
in which the poor perceive themselves and the world. Mere
material assistance is not enough; the poor must have the sense
that  they themselves can shape their own future. Most
totalitarian regimes fear change, but the longer they put off
genuine democratic reform the more likely it is that even their
positive contributions will be vitiated: the success of 
national policies depends on the willing participation of the 
people. Democratic values and human rights, it is sometimes
claimed, run  counter to "national" culture, and all too often
the people at large are  seen as "unfit" for government. Nothing
can be further from the truth. The challenge we now face is for
the different nations and peoples of the world to agree on a
basic set of human values, which will serve as a unifying force
in the development of a genuine global community. True  economic
transformation can then take place in the context of 
international peace and internal political stability. A rapid
democratic transition and strengthening of the institutions of
civil society are the sine qua non for this development. Only
then will we be able to look to a  future where human beings are
valued for what they are rather than for what they produce. If
the UN and its agencies wish to assist this  development they
must support these movements which seek to empower  the people,
movements which are founded on democracy, and which will  one
day ensure a culture of peace and of development.
____________________________________________________
 
                                 FOOTNOTES
 
[1] "Draft Preliminary Outline of the World Report on Culture
and Development". UNESCO, CCD-III/94/Doc. 2, Paris, 7 Feb. 1994,
p.16. 
 
[2] It has been pointed out that the idea of growth not as an
end in itself but as a performance test of development was put
forward by economists as early as the 1950s; Paul Streeten et
al., "First Things First: Meeting  Basic Human Needs in the
Developing Countries", Oxford, 1982 edn. 
 
[3] Francois Perroux, "A New Concept of Development", UNESCO,
Paris,  1983, p. 2.
 
[4] Ibid., p. 180.
 
[5] "Growth normally means quantifiable measure of a society's
overall  level of production or incomes such as GNP or GDP per
capita, while  development involves qualitative aspects of a
society's advancement such as under- and un-employment, income
distribution pattern, housing  situation, nutritional level,
sanitary condition, etc." UNDP Selected  Sectoral Reviews:
[Burma] December 1988, p. 333.
 
[6] Human Development Report 1993, UNDP, Oxford, 1993, p. 1. [7]
"Towards A New Asia", A Report of the Commission for A New Asia,
1994, p. 39.
 
[8] "The logic of an economy governed by solvency and by profit,
subject to the increasing value attached to capital and to the
power of those who  command it is to reject as 'non-economic'
everything which cannot be immediately translated into
quantities and prices in market terms": Paul-Marc Henry (ed.),
"Poverty, Progress and Development", London, 1991, p. 30.
 
[9] Streeten et al., "First Things First", p.19.
 
[10] Henry (ed.), "Poverty, Progress and Development". p. 34. 
 
[11] The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, Chicago, 1993 edn., vol.
16, p. 874.
 
[12] Edward Said comments that governments in general use
culture as a  means of promoting nationalism: "To launder the
cultural past and repaint it in garish nationalist colors that
irradiate the whole society is now so much a fact of
contemporary life as to be considered natural". See  Edward
Said, "Nationalism, Human Rights, and Interpretation", in 
Barbara Johnson (ed.), "Freedom and Interpretation": The Oxford
Amnesty  Lectures, 1992, New York, 1993, p. 191.
 
[13] Harry M. Scoble and Laurie S. Wiseberg (eds.), "Access to
Justice:  Human Rights Struggles in South East Asia", London,
1985, p. 57. 
 
[14] See Clinton Rossiter's introduction to Hamilton, Madison
and Jay, "The Federalist Papers", Chicago, 1961. I owe thanks to
Lady Patricia Gore-Booth for the original quotation on which
Rossiter presumably based his words: "Man's capacity for justice
makes democracy possible;  but man's inclination to injustice
makes democracy necessary", from  Reinhold Niebuhr's foreword to
his "Children of Light and Children of Darkness: A Vindication
of Democracy and a Critique of its Traditional Defence", London,
1945.
 
[15] "The best government is that which governs least" are the
words of a  westerner, John L. O'Sullivan, but more than a
thousand years before O'Sullivan was born it was already written
in the Lao Tzu, A Chinese  classic, that "the best of all rulers
is but a shadowy presence to his  subjects". The notion that "In
a nation the people are the most important, the State is next
and the rulers the least important" is to be found not in the
works of a modern western political theorist but in that of
Mencius. 
 
[16]Ehran Naraghi has shown in his memoirs, "From Palace to
Prison: Inside the Iranian Revolution", London, 1994, that a
critical attitude towards the monarch, decentralization of power
and divisions of responsibilities were part of oriental
tadition. His fascinating conversations with Shah Mohammed Reza
Pahlavi throw into relief the dangers of cultural and
development policies divorced from the aspirations of the
people.
 
[17] Ronald D. Renard, "Minorities in Burmese History", in K.M.
de  Silva et al. (eds.), "Ethnic Conflict in Buddhist Societies:
Sri Lanka,  Thailand and Burma", London, 1988, p. 79.
 
[18] "Towards New Asia", p. 40.
 
[19] "Practically any human behaviour can be, and historically
has been,  rationalized as threatening to damage the security of
the nation": Scoble  and Wiseberg (eds.), "Access to Justice",
p. 58.
 
[20] Human Development Report 1993, p. 53.
 
[21] Ibid., p. 5.  Scoble and Wiseberg (eds.), "Access to
Justice", p. 5, point out the difference between fundamental
reform that "involves a  redistribution of power, a broadening
of participation and influence in  the making of authoritative
decisions" and contingent reform that  "involves a sharing of
the benefits of power holding, or the uses of  power, in order
to avoid the sharing of power itself".
--------------------------------------------------------------