Introduction
Stability when it comes to political details of a country is very hard to pin down and is difficult to achieve most especially in countries like Burma. It has been an issue for a long time though, and considering that the people in Burma do not have a long- term association to political claims or they does not look further into this matter. Lack of political awareness about the important factors that aims at the freedom and independence of Burma have been dissent and instead an autonomous government has prevailed which consequently lessened the success of the minority groups in the country (International Crisis Group, 2006).
Burma or as what it was called before, Myanmar is recognized to have the widest geographical area in Indochina. The varied number of people in Burma has significantly represented vital roles in describing its political affairs, history and its contemporary demographics. However, Burma still has difficulties in patching up its ethnic tensions and battling over democracy is quite difficult to achieve as being under the control of military forces. Burma’s important political parties are the National League for Democracy and the Nationalities League for Democracy but still the activities within the parties are controlled by the military government. Having political parties does not claim its independence and democracy because the military government restricts a lot of political parties and organizations by the students that will possibly threaten the government (Carothers, 2002).
The battle over the democracy in Burma has been undeniably uncertain because there is no answer to what level of the government more likely the people will crave for independence. More often than not, the enthusiasm to move along the downfall of the government system may not be enough to achieve democratic governance.
Discussion
The role of military forces in Burma is not just for its security but for the whole system of governing its people which obviously corrupts the freedom of its people. This gives the idea of what the people in Burma struggles for and probably the usual root of the dilemmas that arise living in an environment which is surrounded by weapons and armed forces. In 1990, democracy was raised by the parliamentary elections but it was rushed through the disappointment of the military regime to accommodate the elected parliament. Because of the desolation, a lot of governments took the policies making regime alter a result for meeting with Burma and look further that it would oblige the military to go on its pledge to return to the elected government (Diamond and Plattner, 1996). However, the military government in Burma remained controlling the political affairs and economy of the country which made the condition of the people to get worse. It is seen that although the country will have its elected government in the position, it would still be deprived of the resources that are important in establishing democracy all over the country because of the unshakeable power of the military. Many organizations pertaining to human rights such as the Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, as well as the American Association for the Advancement of Science have revealed a lot of abuses made by the military government for its people (Brooten, 2004). They defended that an independent judiciary does not exist in Burma. Examples of abuses for the human rights in Burma accounts for the forced labor, human trafficking and internet access are limited. In addition to, sexual violence has also been a serious problem in Burma because the military is also tarnished for using it as a way of controlling the people like rapes and taking women as their sex slaves (Brooten, 2004).
In retrospect, violence was explicitly experienced by the demonstrators during 1988 which aimed at claiming democracy for the country but apparently ended up nothing. A lot of protests took place and created the way for the elections in 1990 but the election results were denied by the government of General Saw Maung. A significant name which is Aung San Suu Kyi, the leader of the National League for Democracy, won for the majority of the parliamentary seats and gained international credit as an activist aiming for democracy. However, Aung San Suu Kyi was placed under house arrest because of protecting peace and stabilization of the country (Akimoto, 2006).
The Association of SouthEast Asian Nation has also been perturbed by the condition of the government of Burma and an Inter-Parliamentary group was created in order to respond to the absence of freedom and independence in the country. Because of the support from the countries like Russia, China and India, a drastic change had happened to Burma. The battle over the democracy in Burma is continuously one of the main talks of the member countries of ASEAN and the UN Security Council. In 2007, the ASEAN summit held in the Philippines attempted to find a solution for the issue in Burma. The foreign ministers are into convincing Burma to improve more on its national unity and democracy (Akimoto, 2006). Also, human rights have been raised as one of the major concerns of some of the member countries as it prevails to have poor human rights. Since 1962, Burma has been under the military government. The time of General Ne Win has also ruled cruelly which often absurdly subordinated the people in Burma through its military obsession. Recently, this was cleared in the refusal of juntas in letting the foreign aid and rescue missions in giving food, medicine, supplies and other help to a lot of victims of the natural catastrophe in Burma (International Crisis Group, 2006).
Going back to the hopes of Burma for political transition which gives space and peaceful progress for the significant factors in the government is treated as a very complex intention. Various cases appear to be the cause of undying military governance over the country. The factors such as the democratic behavior like the minority groups, elections, and freedom of expression, human rights, racial issues and other important points to consider may contribute in stabilizing a democratic country (Akimoto, 2006). Political progress should be wide-ranging in order to provide a good foundation for a government. For some countries, the national identity serves as an important detail to be able to maintain recognition among the ethnic differences in a country. Setting the economy into a good structure will more likely depicts a good shift of government into a better one. For the countries that possesses varied societies and is controlled by an autocratic government, transition has been an internal problem for making a democratic result out of the tensions that arise in the government. This is figured out not just because they do not have enough political and civil departments which may be a foundation for a steadfast structure of an economy. Considering thee fact that Burma does not have a concrete freedom and rights for every privilege that a citizen must have, tensions arising from this factor may result in anarchy which will perhaps complicate things between the political rulers and the minority groups as well as the whole society. Sometimes the consideration for the varied ethnicities of the society affects the long period of government transition and this is seen to be one of the roots of the tensions that arise among groups which have different perspectives toward the government.
The economic potentials of Burma may comprehend with the other countries such as India and China but not perhaps to the (United States Associated Press, 2007). The administration of Bush did not see Burma as one of the terrorist countries though but it admits to elevate with the US if a war will happen between the radical elements of a Muslim minority group. However, it is observed that US does not really push to resolve the cases in Burma when it comes to its political stability, this is because an important domestic interest does not exist for the US in order for them to perform such task. Acharya (2205) has a point for striking the question, “If the US could engage in six-party negotiations involving China, Japan, Russia, and South Korea to deal with the North Korea problem, why should it not encourage a similar move involving China, India, and ASEAN to deal with the Burma issue?”. Promoting democracy perhaps does not scope Burma although there are factors which the US should take as part of its consideration. It is very much expected that the United States and other progressive countries near Burma would make a lot of effort because the issues in Burma is serious and it may affect a lot of countries if it continues to exercise military governance. Dissenting Burma to handle leadership in ASEAN may be a good point but it is not enough to trigger democracy in the country (Acharya, 2005).
The military leadership in Burma is the extremely bad factor that is seen for the crisis that is happening in the country. The reliance of the country on imported fuel and the deficiencies that the economy is experiencing are just the evidences that military management corrupts the instability of its progress. The immensity of the economy shows informality taking for account the activities that the black market has and the discrepancies on the staple needs of the people in Burma (International Crisis Group, 2006). Violence is as well terrible as it becomes very blatant all over the place. And while the large number of population battles out for survival in the country, the urban people are very much degraded for all aspects because of the economic mismanagement.
Military force as the rulers of the country is not an ideal leader to have because it elevates the competing interests of those who are in power in domestic and in the foreign sense. Generals will tend to acquire power continuously and obviously a government transition should not be expected from this scenario. Unfortunately, the fact that a different form of government can save the democracy of Burma, it is not probable to happen because the rulers do not cooperate with the proposals and plans of other countries with regard to this concept.
Conclusion
The battle over the democracy in Burma has been a very large issue especially the most recent talks of the word organizations which gives emphasis to the case of Aung San Suu Kyi. Human rights is just one of the results of having a military government. It has brought a lot of misrepresentation of leadership towards the economy and other aspects of the government. According to Turnell (2006), the macroeconomic condition of Burma is seriously unsound and it does not possess the vital foundations of having a good economy. Pathetic it may seem but the crisis happens in reality, thinking that the world has been emerging for various innovations, Burma is still left out and even democracy is hard to achieve. Chaotic situations such as violence, inflation is out of control, widespread unemployment, financial crisis is very rampant and other economic issues are severely managed by the leaders. What should be expected from this kind of situation is the probability of having anarchism.
However, the international community should respond to this situation in Burma immediately in order to help its people. Hopes for the democracy in Burma are still in the future and should be worked out properly by the respective organizations that will take a big part for the history of Burma. It is good to know though that the international community is giving much attention to the crisis that happens in Burma and be able to disseminate plans and negotiations for its democracy.
References
Acharya, A. (2005). “Democracy in Burma: Does Anybody Really Care?”, Yale Global, 2009. Web.
Akimoto, Y. (2006) Opportunities and Pitfalls; Preparing for Burma’s Economic Transition, Open Society Institute, New York, pp. 16 and 72.
Associated Press, (2007). “China, Russia Cast Veto Against U.S. Resolution on Myanmar”.
Brooten, L. (2004). Human rights discourse and the development of democracy in a multi-ethnic state. Asian Journal of Communication, 14(2), 174-191.
Carothers, T. (2002). “The End of the Transition Paradigm,” Journal of Democracy, Volume 13, Number 1.
Diamond, L. and Plattner, M. The Global Resurgence of Democracy (Second Edition), Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 1996.
International Crisis Group, (2006) “Myanmar: New Threats to Humanitarian Aid,” Asia Briefing No. 58, Yangon/Brussels, p. 5.
Turnell, S. (2006). “Burma’s Economic Prospects,” p. 4. Testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs.