[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index ][Thread Index ]

PART-2.THE ACTIVISTS AND ADVOCACY



/* Written Sun 21 Jun 11:00am 1998 by drunoo@xxxxxxxxxxxx(Dr U Ne Oo) in igc:reg.burma */
/* -------------" The Activists and Advocacy Pt.2 "--------------- */

COMMENTS ON ACTIVISTS AND ADVOCACY, PART-2.

TWO DISCIPLINES FOR POLITICAL ANALYSIS
**************************************
Broadly speaking, there are two disciplines for analysing politics:
one based on studying behaviour and attitude of political elites and
the other focusing on behaviour, beliefs and political formation of the 
masses--known as Political Sociology. To understand the political
behaviours, one will need fair knowledge of both disciplines.
To my observation, majority of Burmese activists use the method of
analysis that are more akin to the former discipline. The latter
approach, political sociology, is much more helpful in understanding
political policies and political behaviour of the masses, such as
movements. One of the reason some Burmese tend to attack personal or
personality, probably, is because they have not acquire understanding
principally of political policy and issues, i.e. political sociology.
(Also observed is that the professional political institutions,
only in a desperate position, may choose to make personal attack
on their opponents which considered to be the "dirty politics".)

ASPIRATION OF MASSES AND DOING POLITICS
***************************************
Doing politics is not simply about debating issues in public in
order that the best debater should get his/her own way. Nor all
politicians/activists can simply do things whenever they've got
elected/supported by the public. A formally elected politician or a
"self-appointed" political activist may only carry out actions that
are believed to be in consistent with the aspiration of masses.
Whether such action being a correct one would be a measure of the
ability of leadership as well as how truly a leadership reflect the 
aspiration of the masses. However, it is a silly thing to say to a 
political activist, in our case of Burmese dissidents, to be the 
self-appointed leadership for a simple technical reason.

For the population under siege, such as the people of Burma, the
political activists must rely on various means, i.e. predicting and
theorising, in order to gauge the will of the population. It is the
nature of dissident politics that political activists must evaluate
the will of their population mainly through indirect means. Burmese
activists, accordance with their own interpretation of Burmese
society, must simply represent themselves as delegates of the
oppressed masses to engage in the struggle. The question of whether
their actions and interpretations are right one for Burma will have
to be judged by the history.

THE RIGHT TO STRUGGLE: GENERAL AUNG SAN
***************************************
Under most circumstances, the political dissidents have  to
make decision, mount campaign and engage in struggle, on behalf of
the oppressed. For example, in Burma's struggle for independence
from Britain, General Aung San did not seek to consult -there was no
need - with the oppressed Burmese whether they wanted to be free
from Britain. In 1940, Aung San secretly went to China trying to
establish contact with Chinese communists. Later, due to
circumstances, he accepted the help from the Japanese. From this
history for independence, we can also see that those engaged in
struggle must make decisions according to prevailing circumstances.

THE RIGHT TO REBEL: SAYA SAN
****************************
We can also look at 1930's Saya San peasant-rebellion as an example.
The British authorities' view on 1930-peasant rebellion was that
Saya San wanted to be a King therefore he rebel the British
government. This assessment, which seems to have made merely based
on the attitude of political elites, is certainly inaccurate.
In the 1930s, we know that the Burmese rural communities had been
under severe social and economic stress, primarily because of the
British government introduction of land tax, land tenure and Indian
money leaders etc. Such social discontent was forming to become a
rebellion and Saya San, as a political leadership, had to lead such
rebellion. Saya San, in his time, probably look to the monarchy as
an alternative system to British administration. Therefore, it is
wrong to suggest Saya San rebel the British because he wanted to be
a King.

As the two examples above showed, the political leadership may
emerge primarily as a reflection of the aspiration of the masses. 
It is also obvious that the leadership must initially struggle without 
full knowledge or consensus view of the majority masses regarding 
their causes. Present day analogies of the leadership in struggle, 
in this context, are too numerous to mention.

LEADERSHIPS: SELF-MADE IMPORTANT PEOPLE ?
*****************************************
At this point, a crucial question must be asked why some Burmese
dissidents choose to confront the government, at great personal
sacrifices and risks, while the rest of expatriates rather stay
quiet ? Are these dissidents simply making themselves "important" or
the rest of expatriates community so cowered by SLORC/SPDC
intimidation ? Part of the answer lies in the beliefs and attitudes
of political leadership.

Most Burmese dissidents have spoken out against the government in
public primarily because of they have the political views and beliefs.
Although we (Burmese) all have grown up in the same socio-political
environment, only those who acquired such political views and
outlooks will likely to form a political belief that the need to
strive for political change. Not everyone in the community, though
can generally distinguish goods and bads of politics, will acquire
such political views and political outlooks. Only those who came to
form the political beliefs will be leading to carry out the political 
actions. (A note of caution: the above argument is generally for the
people who are engaged in the so-called revolutionary politics. In a
well-established political systems, where political success is usually
associated with fame and fortune, the driving factors for people
doing politics can be much more complex and can be other than their
beliefs, however.)

In conclusion, as above two historic examples show, the political
leaders and leadership must rise up to serve the aspiration of the
masses. This conclusion is true regardless of those people, i.e.
the activists and leaders, themselves are aware about the fact that 
their values and aspiration are intimately connected to that of the
masses. How well a leader/leadership reflect the aspirations of
masses will be as a matter of judgment made by the course of events.

CONSENSUS VIEWS AND LEADERSHIP
******************************
To my understanding, good political leadership is not about carrying
out the tasks that are of simple majority opinion, though the majority
aspiration has to be an influencing factor. For example, Daw Aung San
Suu Kyi's decision in 1988-89 to resist the military regime in a
non-violent means is a form of political leadership. At that time,
the public emotions against the regime was running high and Suu Kyi,
as a leader, could have easily persuaded to resort to violence if
she were to listen to the consensus-majority views. However, her
insistence that the public must not use violence in resisting
dictators has proven her leadership ability (the total success for
this decision of leadership, of course, is still need to be proven.)

We can also look at the NCGUB as a case study on political leadership.
The decision to form a federal union for Burma in December 1990 by
those MPs, The Manerplaw Agreement, can be seen as an act of political
leadership. At that time, and at present still, many Burmese inside
Burma, especially of our generation, do not have an imagination of
how the ethnic political problem with democratic aspiration may be
combined together to reach a solution. The Manerplaw Agreement have
paved the way for peaceful co-existence of ethnic minorities and
majority Burmans (time, again, is still needed to prove this fact).

Whereas the Burmese political leadership have chosen definite path
to peace and democracy, it would all depend on our ability to
materialize these final objectives. Such objectives will only be
possible to achieve by mutual understanding and cooperation amongst
all democratic forces.

With best regards, U Ne Oo.

/* Endreport */
___________________________________________________________________
!                     drunoo@xxxxxxxxxxxx                         !
!          http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~uneoo              !
!                    ***** NOW ALSO ON *****                      !
! http://freeburma.org/ (A one stop homepage for all Burma info.) !
-------------------------------------------------------------------