No tags yet.
There is an old Burmese folktale that goes like this: a merry king and his chief minister, dining by the windowsill, spill a drop of honey. The honey attracts a fly, the fly is then eaten by a spider, and the spider in turn is snatched by a lizard. Things carry on to this effect until people join the fray, then their friends, and at last the palace guards. Within the next few hours, civil war breaks out, the city burns, and a kingdom, in effect, is lost to a drop of honey. Burma today has fared little better: subject to over half a century of foul dictatorship, the country has suffered from civil wars and vicious ethnic strife. Modern Myanmar (formerly Burma) runs the risk of being lost, not to a drop of honey, but to a military junta that mauls the slightest democratic reform—until last month. On November 8th, Burma held a translucent election, resulting in a landslide victory of the opposition candidate Nobel peace-prize recipient Aung San Suu Kyi, the National League for Democracy (NLD). But to understand the full implications and limitations of Ms Suu Kyi's victory, an overview of modern Burmese history is in order. It began at the peculiar time of 4:20 am, January 4th, 1948, when Burma declared independence from the British Empire. The newly christened Union of Burma, a representative democracy, was bemired by ethnic conflict from the outset. The new government reigned in on a constitutional promise of autonomy for some of the largest ethnic minorities, becoming a continual source of unrest in the multi-ethnic nation of Burma: ethnic Burmese make up only two-thirds of the population, the rest belonging to well over a hundred different ethnicities, the largest being the Shan, Karen, Kachin, Rakhine and Mon peoples. Burma’s fragile democracy ended in 1962: a military coup established the military dictatorship that ruled directly until recently. The press muzzled, dissent crushed, and human rights dryly discarded, Burma submerged into international isolation and authoritarianism. It was controversially renamed Myanmar in 1989. Meanwhile, numerous ethnic militias, demanding political sovereignty, violently clashed with the central government in a series of civil wars, some of which, despite cease-fires, continue to claim lives today. Protracted ethnic violence has displaced millions in the ethnic peripheries of Burma, generating an outpour of refugees into neighbouring states of India and China. Yet, since 2010, the government has moved towards democratic reform. Nevertheless, mob violence against Muslim Rohingyas (Burma is a predominately Buddhist country) has continued, underlying far-from-resolved ethnic tensions. While the NLD soundly defeated the military in elections, Ms Suu Kyi remains ineligible to become President due to a constitutional provision, which stems from the military's constitution, which cannot be altered without over 75% of the parliament's vote. The not-so-subtle irony here is that the military permanently holds 25% of parliamentary seats. Despite obvious hindrances, Burma today is closer to democratic government than it has been since perhaps the 1950s. But as history shows, this has been a long and painful path. Nevertheless, the Burmese do not go without a hint of humour when it comes to their past. There is a sort of a national joke that goes: George Orwell wrote not just one novel about Burma, but three: Burmese Days, of course, and then Animal Farm and Nineteen-Eighty-four. And while Orwell did not pen many happy endings, the next chapter of Burmese history may just have the chance of reaching one. It certainly deserves it.