A Paradox of Bulletocracy and Representative Democracy in Burma

By Naing Ko Ko

April 15, 2008 - Whilst in the post Saffron Revolution period the military regime in Burma has announced referendum in May 2008, for a new constitution and an election to be held in 2010, it is really a model for continuation of the ‘bulletocracy’ dominated by military generals for more than a decade.

Simultaneously, both pro and con debates on the referendum /constitution have occurred in the horizon of Burma domestic politics, with statements welcoming and rejecting from foreign policy elites, particularly from neighboring countries of China, Thailand, India and Western liberal democracies.

In addition, a polarization of views has also appeared among the democracy activists: those who have applied a "VoteNo" approach and those who have advocated a "NoVote" position towards the military plotted referendum. Burma's "Wuthering-Heights-elites", branding themselves as a so-called "third-force", will utilize "VoteYes" in this referendum. Some of them are secretly importing a bulletocracy- transitional-model to the Burma political landscape while ignoring the emancipation theory.

There is a point where questions and answers need to be formulated beyond the referendum, constitution and upcoming election in 2010 by the opposition movers and shakers of Burma. They must frame a strategic policy beyond the referendum/election in 2010 rather than following with "the waves of can't do approaches" and the "upper-structure-transforming" paths.

Politics means a struggle over power. One of the key political dilemmas of Burma is who should run the state political power? Will Burma political power be run by democratically elected representatives or the military dominated bulletocray? Technically speaking, how will a Burma transition be achieved? Will it be a development-theory-based-regime shift, neo-Gramscism based social entrepreneurs led mass movement, or Leninism based bottom to top power-structure reform and army-struggle?

But whatever theories and school of thoughts we are debating, the reality of present Burma politics is that the generals turned civilian-elites are aiming to run the state power politics for more decades, instead of transferring legitimate political power to the elected representatives. It is an obvious fact that the regime wants to maintain the status quo, and its power firmly based on army and economy. The opposition needs to challenge and fragment the SPDC's power structure and domain both domestically and internationally.

There are no comprehensive policy-platforms on how to apply a regime-change model for Burma after the referendum and election, either from within the SPDC military generals and democratic power-crusaders, or from the multilateral and transnational agencies such as United Nation Security Council (UNSC), European Union (E.U), World Bank (WB), International Monetary Fund (IMF) and Asean.

Obviously, there is a little option for domestic challengers to voting against the referendum, and thus go in line with "VoteNo" approaches. However, transnational activists have a lot more choices of strategies to counterattack the junta' plotted bulletocracy-model.

Power crusaders must think about the approaches beyond the referendum and election on the processes of transitional regime. It is not an appropriate time to claim "VoteYes", "dialogue" and "national reconciliation". As an internal strategy it is time to focus on mass mobilization and emancipation theory to achieve regime change in Burma and, on international fronts, it is a strategically and essential to delegitimize the SPDC' political legitimacy and sovereignty.

Even though the regime has formulated this military dominated constitution to get "VoteYes", the mass mobilization and power of powerless can override a constitution proposal which has no room for human sovereignty or human dignity. The people of Burma are demanding genuine people freedom and political liberalization, not century long military hegemonization and bulletocracy. It is worth noting that General McArthur drafted the Japanese constitution within a week at his desk on a warship, and there is no written constitution in the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Israel. It is significant that the international businessman and transoceanic investors are not interested in a regime run economy.

There are no economic incentives and interests for such multinational business firms in Burma due to the junta's poorly designed monetary and fiscal policy. Moreover, the Junta is losing leverage in their bargaining relations with multinational firms, because of Burma's low standard of transportation, out of date bureaucracy, poor communication infrastructure, and its notorious political image as a military dictatorship.

Both the military-driven-transitional style and the elite-driven- transition model ignore the significance of emancipation theory, the people participatory process and Neo-Gramscism in politics. What I would especially like to point to the Burma' Wuthering Height' elites, is that it is a time of human sovereignty, political freedom and human security, not "something is better than nothing" and "can't do" approaches.

Moreover, I would like to say to the Burma' Wuthering Height' elites that Burma is neither a talking-shop nor a business firm. Remember: the more educated you are, the more moral responsibility you have to society. You all have a moral responsibility to help the people of Burma get out from under this military oppression and build a knowledge-based society. Those who are modern intellectuals living in Burma or exile should not be a simply talkers, but must be directors and entrepreneurs who assist national-building, political liberalization, and society.

The mass mobilization and the emancipation approaches may take a long time and it will not happen overnight in Burma. Grand revolution and regime change, which occurred with the power of the people power and the power of powerless, have changed many modern histories and political landscapes in this world.

In order to stop the bulletocray and establish representative democracy, it is an essential agenda that to deliver 'can-do-minded', 'human sovereignty' to the people of Burma. Burma needs multidimensional disciplines and theory approaches for the democratization process.

Naing Ko Ko is a postgraduate scholarship student in the Department of Political Studies at the University of Auckland in New Zealand. He is a former political prisoner.

- Asian Tribune -