Print 
PDFThe likelihood of Burma’s reform process generating a democratic transition is “only incipient at best,” says a leading democracy scholar, even though recent events offer the exciting and promising prospect of an opening of political space. The military’s prerogatives must be curbed through constitutional reform and the country’s leading opposition party needs to undergo a degree of “renovation,” Stanford University’s Larry Diamond, who recently returned from Burma, tells The Irrawaddy’s Simon Roughneen.
With Burma’s reforms making media headlines around the world, many observers believe that the long-time former military dictatorship is on the road to real change. President Thein Sein recently announced a second year of reforms, focusing on the economy, after an initial year of mostly political change. But does that mean that Burma’s government has already laid the foundations for a democratic transition and can move on to the economy?
Question: Is the Burma government doing the right things, the right way, in the right order, in your view, to support a sustainable transition to democracy? Any indicators that the government is merely undertaking cosmetic changes, akin to the ‘electoral authoritarianism’ you’ve pointed out in places such as Venezuela and Russia?
Answer: I think that the transition is still very much in an early stage and it is not clear by any means at this point that electoral democracy will be the outcome of it or that electoral democracy is the intended outcome. …..
The Constitution has a number of serious flaws that would means that democracy would not emerge even if the opposition wins a majority of seats in the 2015 election. There is a need for reform of the Constitution, reform of the federal system, there are massive needs for civic education, there are needs for reconciliation—not only between the government and the opposition but among the opposition groups.
So all of this is only incipient at best, it is exciting that the process has begun …. but it is important not to underestimate the challenges that lie ahead.
Q: What changes to date to you think are the most important in terms of driving democratic transition forward? And beyond those, what else needs to happen, what else needs to change?
A: There are opposition members in Parliament including the NLD [National League for Democracy], and the recent by-elections were free and fair enough to allow the NLD to win 43 seats. …. There is the possibility that the Parliament can become a locus for dialogue, one venue where discussions can happen about the future of the country.
There is a climate of freedom and openness that has not existed very much in the country in the last half century. Civil society groups and organizations are forming, people are reading seriously about democratic institutions. There is a fascination and enthusiasm among people for learning more about democracy that to me is reminiscent of other transitions around the world in recent decades, such as in Poland and South Africa and Latin America…….
There at least needs to be a plan for transition away from the degree of military domination that currently remains in the system, but constitutional reform could take the pragmatic view that the military needs these provisions as a confidence-building measure, over a period of time, but then the question arises, how long? Another five year period after 2015?
Q: What do you think of the state of political parties in Burma? Are they equipped to be harbingers of change? Do they, and civil society, have a good understanding of democracy and democratic change, in your view?
A: Speaking about the NLD first, it is my impression that it has tremendous support and grassroots presence and that is a very important foundation on which to build. But it seems to need some organizational renovation, and it is also very important for the political party that seeks to be the democratic voice of society to be more democratic itself and to build stronger democratic structures … that would renovate it and lead it to be better-prepared for the leadership role it is likely to have in a democratic system.
A number of other opposition parties are too new or small for me to assess them, but some of them have had elections and seem to be trying to build structures. The only way you can assess the strengths of parties is through elections, ……
I was very impressed with the civil society organizations I met—they struck me as capable, professional, enthusiastic about learning about democratic change. Some of the ones I met were the Yangon School of Political Science, House of Media Entertainment, Myanmar Egress—the largest and most institutionalized, Myanmar Institute of Theology and Concord, and there were others. Everybody is doing training now, and building knowledge and capacity is very important. I was impressed with the energy and activity.
Q: Remembering that the 1962 coup in Burma was justified on fears that Burma’s ethnic minorities might try to secede, any sign of nervousness or cold feet among the former junta top brass about the transition?
A: The problem of violence and conflict in ethnic minority areas remains one of the biggest challenges for the transition in Burma and for democratic stability in the future. …
A second is between them on retrospective justice, transitional justice. It is probably going to need very clear assurances that if there is to be full democracy, that the incumbent authorities and those in power now might need to be told that there will not be a wave of prosecutions. I don’t see the prospect that the military, the people who control power at the moment, will give it up if they think there is a chance they will be prosecuted.
Thirdly, something needs to be done in a more comprehensive way to address the grievances of the non-Burman ethnic minority groups. ….
Q: What are your thoughts on US policy regarding Burma? Is the US government getting the sequencing right? What about green light for energy investment with the state-owned oil and gas company despite Aung San Suu Kyi’s warnings, and those of a number of US senators and congressmen and women?
A: I am concerned about that. When you look at why the regime is opening up it is hard to shake the interpretation that there is a strong desire after all these years of lost time and stalled development to shake free of sanctions and Burma’s isolation and join the international economy in a vigorous way.
So there is some leverage that the United States and the West have, that these sanctions were there for a reason, due to the lack of democracy and the abuses of human rights. So if you give everything away at the start when all of this is reversible and there are huge hurdles to be scaled in order for the country to emerge as a genuine electoral democracy, then what leverage do we have left?
I would praise Secretary Clinton and the Obama administration for engaging the regime—it is time to engage Burma with a much scaled-up support for institutions in government, the Parliament, judicial reform. …..But some sanctions need to remain in place until it is clear that the country is moving toward democracy and not pseudo-democracy.
Irrawaddy is supported by the National Endowment for Democracy, the Washington-based democracy assistance group.
This article has One response