The Nation - Junta needs a new role

[tinkyi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Subject: The Nation - Junta needs a new role model

The Nation June 14, 1999.
Editorial & Opinion

Junta needs a new role model

THE Burmese junta once used the former Indonesian regime as a role model.
Now that Suharto has gone and democratic elections have taken place, what
path will the military in Rangoon take? Khin Maung Win monitored the
Indonesian poll and compares the two countries.

Unlike in Burma, where the election-winning party is treated as criminals,
Indonesia's opposition parties, sure to win the June 7 general elections,
are now discussing how a transitional government will be formed. Many
observers regard Indonesia's general elections as free and fair, and as the
first step towards political reform and democracy.

In May 1990, the Burmese people voted in their general elections in the hope
that it would be the first step to political reform. The unexpected result,
which saw the opposition NLD, under the leadership of Nobel Peace Prize
Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, win 81 per cent of the seats, was due to the
people's strong desire for democracy. Yet the dream of Burmese democracy
remains just that -- a dream.

The question arises of whether the democratisation of Indonesia can have any
effect on Burma, a country that shares many of Indonesia's characteristics
in its political culture. The similarities between the two should be
examined, particularly to determine what is necessary to put Burma on the
right track to democracy.

The historical relationship between Burma and Indonesia dates back to the
early 1950s. Burma's Prime Minister U Nu and Indonesia's President Sukarno
were active in formulating the principles of the Bandung Conference in
Indonesia in 1955, the precursor to the Non-Aligned Movement. After the
Burmese and Indonesian armies removed their respective leaders -- U Nu in
1962 and Sukarno in 1965 -- both countries introduced totalitarian and
authoritarian regimes. In both countries the main justification claimed by
the military for controlling power was that the military has a dual
function. Both claim that the armed forces have responsibilities not only in
matters of internal security and national defence, but also in virtually
every socio-political realm.


Resistance against military oppression emerged in both countries, where
people, especially students, confronted troops in attempts to restore
democracy.

Suu Kyi and Megawati Sukarnoputri emerged as leaders during the popular
struggles. Similarities between the two countries increased as Burma's
military junta copied Indonesia's authoritarian political system, despite
that system's gradual collapse.

Since January 1993, the Burmese military junta has been drafting a state
constitution, introducing an Indonesian style authoritarian-presidential
government. The Burmese military has successfully set up a Burmese form of
Golkar, known as the Union Solidarity and Development Association (Usda), as
a political base for the military.

At the peak of Burma's nationwide people's demonstration demanding
democracy, in which thousands were killed, the military agreed to hold a
multi-party general election. Similarly, there is no doubt that the June 7
general elections in Indonesia were the result of a series of student-led
bloody demonstrations for democracy which were at times brutally suppressed
by the armed forces.

Despite the above similarities, the two countries are not progressing
equally in terms of democracy. While the prospects for political reform and
democracy in Indonesia are brightening, Burma's future is still one of total
uncertainty. This is because those in power in the two countries have taken
different approaches to the recognition of election results.

Unlike Burma's Election Commission, the National Election Commission of
Indonesia (KPU) enjoys much independence in carrying out the tasks
stipulated for it by law. In contrast, Burma's Election Commission is
composed only of senior leaders of the former Burma Socialist Programme
Party (BSPP), the country's sole political party until it was brought down
by the mass demonstrations. The Election Commission is greatly influenced by
the ruling military junta, the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) --
formerly known as the State Law and Order Restoration Council, or Slorc.

The only thing that Burma's Election Commission does these days is dismiss
elected representatives, while no attempt has been made to implement the
1990 election result as stipulated by law. The Indonesian KPU will most
certainly not behave as its Burmese counterpart is doing.

Golkar and B J Habibie's government have promised to respect the election
results whoever the winners may be. Burmese who wish for genuine democracy
in Indonesia will be praying that such promises will not be reneged upon as
has occurred in Burma.

The abilities of the two countries' militaries to adapt to the current world
trend also differ. Whatever its past sins, Abri, the Indonesian military,
now seems to be taking the gentle path to pave the way for democratisation.
Abri even accepts involvement by the United Nations in the internal affairs
of what it had once claimed as its own -- East Timor. However its
counterpart in Burma strongly rejects any involvement by the UN.

Unlike Suharto, who resigned from office just last year, Ne Win, who
officially resigned from office long ago, still wields great influence over

the performance of the Burmese military regime. Both Abri and Habibie's
government can take political initiatives independent of any input from
Suharto. The Burmese military regime does not have that independence.
Democratisation in Indonesia does not necessarily depend on the death of
Suharto. In Burma, however, the death of Ne Win is a prerequisite.

Indonesian leaders will not dare to destroy an economy already weakened by
an unstable political situation. Whether in government or in opposition, all
Indonesian politicians are aware of the necessity for political stability in
order to pave the way for economic recovery. In contrast, Burma's generals
believe that power must be firmly held prior to any recovery of the economy,
which has deteriorated drastically since the military came to power.

Nowadays, a sharp line has been drawn between Burma and Indonesia by
Indonesia's democratisation. Although Burma's general elections were held
nine years earlier than Indonesia's, Indonesia has reversed the positions
and now appears much closer to realising democracy. No one doubts that the
Indonesian elected representatives will perform the task of bringing the
nation onto the path of democracy with necessary political reform. Observers
agree that Indonesia will eventually have a great impact on the
non-democratic members of Asean.

It can be said that Suharto's removal is one step forward for democracy in
Indonesia, but also one step back for the Burmese military in copying
Indonesian style authoritarianism. If the Burmese generals had dared to copy
the Indonesia of before, will they dare to copy the model that will emerge
in the near future? The time has come for them to decide whether they are
going to match regional, if not international, trends or risk staying alone
in the dark.

-------------

Khin Maung Win is an executive committee member of the Burma Lawyers'
Council.