BURMA: Change of acquired military mindset needed to push for genuine reform

Monday, 17 October 2011

If President Thein Sein government is angling or aiming at full fledged legitimacy and lifting of sanctions, imposed by the West, by releasing barely some 220 political prisoners from a total of 6,359 set free last week, it has failed its intended targets quite miserably.

Sai Wansai

True, while the shelving of Myitsone Dam, at least during his legislature period, is seen by many as a courageous move, the fervent hope that the much publicized release of political prisoners would also be as bold and all-inclusive. But to the disappointment of the people, democratic and ethnic oppositions, it turned out to be a flop.

Of over 2000 or so political prisoners, only 220 were among the released. The regime also failed to set free the high profile individuals like Hkun Htun Oo, leader of the Shan Nationalities League for Democracy (SNLD) that won the most seat in Shan State in the 1990 nation-wide elections, Min Ko Niang and Ko Ko Gyi, student leaders of 88 generation, and U Gambira, the monk leader, closely identified with the “Saffron Revolution” that rocked Burma in 2007.

So far, the lone Shan figure released from prison was Major General Hso Ten; the former leader of the now divided Shan State Army (SSA) North. Hso Ten had faced an original 106 year prison term.

It is not clear if this has something to do with the war going on between the SSA and Burma Army, which have cost the latter some 500 or so killed in action, according to the SSA field report.

No wonder, Sao Yawdserk, leader of the Shan State Army (SSA) South said: “It shows the regime attaches more importance to those with arms than those without.”

If Thein Sein’s intention is to achieve reconciliation, this stingy, partial release, which amount to just about three percent of the political prisoners from the total amount of some 6000 released prisoners, is simply not enough.

Undoubtedly, while the recent release of political prisoners has brought joy and reunion for friends and family members, it has been a big disappointment for those still languishing in various prisons across the country. As a whole, Thein Sein’s ad hoc move has caught international headlines, but it is more of a shattered dream than a dream come true for those still in jails and the majority of the people, hoping that this might be an all-inclusive amnesty and pave way for a more comprehensive reconciliation and democratisation process.

The question arise here, why on earth can’t  he be generous, when it cost him nothing but could instead reap praise and more credential to his publicised piece meal reform process, leading to his intended goals of increased legitimacy and possible lifting of sanctions.

Zaganar, one of the prominent political prisoners, who is also a famous and  known comedian, likened the Thein Sein’s recent amnesty to “letting a stroke stricken grandma, with make-up, walking down the street”, indicating that he was at a loss on what to make out of this meagre and insufficient release of political prisoners.

According to Alternative Asean Network on Burma (ALTSEAN) dated 14 October, during the period of November 2004 to May 2011, the enacted ten amnesties have released over 66,437 prisoners, of which 827 or merely 1.2 % was political prisoners.

Of course, one could still argue that the recent release, on 12 October, is 3.4% and thus is an improvement, compare to the past amnesties.

On 13 October, The Wall Street Journal reported that Ye Htut, director general of the Information and Public Relations Department of the Ministry of Information in Myanmar, suggested in an emailed response to the complaints that critics shouldn’t jump to conclusions, and that more changes could follow. He wrote that the international stakeholders should appreciate, encourage and support all government actions which move to the right direction.
Many might wonder why Thein Sein chooses to act the way he does.

The answer might lie on the mental inclination or mind-set of the successive military leaders, of which Thein Sein is also a party. The successive military regimes, from Revolutionary Council (RC), Burma Socialist Programme Party (BSPP), State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC), State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) to the recent military-backed Thein Sein government have ruled the country from 1962 onwards.

The hallmark of Burma’s military leadership is group survival mentality, paranoia and ethnocentrism.

Looking at the duration of almost five decades of continuous rule, under different names or banners, the Burmese military leaders have been successful to live up to their group survival mentality.

The present Thein Sein government with a civilian face is still manned by ex-military generals and officers, not to mention the constitutional right, or should we say licence, to stage military coup if the President and the military find it necessary for whatever reason, allotment of 25% seats to the military in the parliament without having to go through the election, and making it difficult to amend the constitution by imposing the 75% vote ceiling.

As on can see, a built-in, “fail-safe device” to secure the hold of the military is clearly there for all to see. Apart from that, the military, rightly or wrongly, is convinced of its righteousness in its self-appointed governing role of the country.

The military leader’s paranoia or siege mentality is also ingrained in their mindset. And as such, they had always strived for total control. The tiny percent of recently released political prisoners is a case in point. It might be that they want to move at their own pace, which is controllable. Also phobia of uprising, which could be spearheaded by the released political prisoners, could be the reason. But the more likely factor is using the prisoners as a bargaining chip against international stakeholders, to garner legitimacy and lifting of sanctions.

The most crucial one though is the deeply rooted ethnocentrism or racial supremacy tendency against all non-Burman ethnic groups like Kachin, Shan, Karenni, Karen, Mon, Arakan and Chin.  The ongoing armed conflict, which has started decades ago, between the various ethnic groups and the Burmese military is a stark reminder that ethnocentrism mindset is entrenched in the military leadership mindset.

To sum up, if Thein Sein wants to achieve the lifting of sanctions and gain increased legitimacy, he would need to be more generous in meeting the demands of international community. But first and foremost, he must get rid of the military mindset which he has acquired during his life time, to truly become a reformer like Frederik Willem de Klerk of South Africa or Bacharuddin Jusuf Habibie of Indonesia. Otherwise, his piecemeal, baby steps or half-hearted reform process would be seen as failing the mark or simply insufficient and that would be a pity for those willing to see real progress and harmony in Burma.

The contributor is General Secretary of Shan Democratic Union – Editor