Letters from Burma by Aung San Suu Kyi.

Some Problems of Definition

There is an expression much bandied about these days which, in its Burmanized form, sounds very much like "jeans shirt." This has nothing to do with the denim mania that has come to Burma, together with foreign bars and cigarettes, walking shoes, expensive batiks, Pajeros and all the other paraphernalia so dear to the hearts of the small, privileged elite who have profited wonderfully from the selective open market economy. The expression actually refers to "Gene Sharp," the author of some works on "political defiance." These writings seem to be exercising the authorities in Burma considerably. Last month, 19 political prisoners were tried in Mandalay and they were all sentenced to seven years imprisonment, each on a charge of high treason. The possession of copies of books by Gene Sharp seemed to have been taken as part of the evidence against the defendants. (Not that "defendant" is an appropriate word to use in connection with political detainees in Burma as they have no real right of defense at all.)

At a government press conference this month, more references were made to political defiance. When a correspondent asked whether these political defiance courses initiated by Gene Sharp trained people to commit political assassinations and other accts of violence, a spokesman for SLORC (State Law and Order Restoration Council) said they did not know, as they had not attended any of those courses. It is very puzzling that courses about the contents of which the authorities are totally ignorant should be seen as in any way connected with treason. It was also alleged at the press conference that I had talked about political defiance with an American visitor. When a correspondent asked me whether this was so, I said that it was not so, as I could not at all recall any conversation about Gene Sharp or his books or the courses in political defiance he is said to have conducted. Later, it occurred to me that both my interviewer and I had merely been thinking of political defiance in terms of SLORC-speak. In fact, political defiance is no more synonymous with Gene Sharp than with denim shirts. It can be defined simply as the natural response of anybody who disagrees with the opinions of the government in power. In that sense, the great majority of people in Burma are perpetually engaged in political defiance in their hearts, if not in their actions.

Another interesting question posed by a correspondent at the SLORC press conference was why the authorities objected to the opposition carrying out its work. The answer was that it was dangerous. A government that has promised a transfer to "multiparty democracy" views the work of the opposition as DANGEROUS? A self-proclaimed conservationist might as well chop down trees indiscriminately and massacre rare, and not so rare, species with wild abandon.

There are two problems of definition in the above paragraph. This repeated reference to "multiparty democracy" since the SLORC took over power: Surely the expression is tautology? And "one-party democracy" would be oxymoronic. Democracy basically means choice, and political choice means the existence of more than one effective political party or force. "Democracy" by itself should be sufficient to indicate a pluralistic political approach.

Then there is the question of the word "opposition." The NLD (National League for Democracy) is often referred to as "the opposition." But it was the NLD that won the only democratic elections held in more than 30 years and won them with an overwhelming majority such as was not achieved by any other political party in those countries that made the transition from dictatorship to democracy in the 1980s and 1990s. The word "opposition," when applied to a party which won the unequivocal mandate of the people, takes on a peculiar ring. But leaving that aside, how does one define the work of an opposition in any country which claims to be heading toward (multiparty) democracy?

A group guided by the political legacy of a prominent communist leader who engaged in armed rebellion against the government for several decades after Burma regained her independence, and who later laid down arms and recanted, came to see me some months ago. They read out the political guidelines laid down by their late leader which, among other things, condemned the idea of any work aimed at removing a government in power. I explained to them that this was unacceptable to anybody who truly believed in democracy. In a genuine democracy, it is the legitimate function of opposition parties to work at removing the government through the democratic process. Any political ideology that disallows parties from carrying out opposition activities and presenting themselves to the country as viable alternatives to the existing government cannot be said to have anything to do with democracy. To view opposition as dangerous is to misunderstand the basic concepts of democracy. To oppress the opposition is to assault the very foundations of democracy.