By Iram Khan
The recent government reshuffle in Myanmar has generated a new global debate on the country’s political system. Trying to adjust the balance between its military and non-military stakeholders, Myanmar has since long attempted to address the internal differences that have stymied its progress.
What is often overlooked is the reason why the balance keeps tipping to one side or the other in Myanmar even after more than 70 years of its independence from Britain.
Before British imperial forces occupied the country as a result of the three Anglo-Burmese wars, there was a functioning monarchy deeply rooted in the traditional culture and society.
The economy was controlled by the state under the principle of agrarian self-sufficiency, where trade and the mechanisms of supply and demand were not much eminent. The Burmese Buddhism was under royal patronage with a symbiotic relationship between the state and the monkhood. Judicial – among several other – responsibilities also remained with Hluttaw, the central council of the government.
But as the British established their colonial overlordship while eliminating monarchy and the monkhood, the social structure of the country suffered damage that it is yet to recover from. British military officers, acting in the place of the Hluttaw as the judges and jury, were guilty of mass executions.
The governance system of Myanmar was further damaged as village headmen were replaced with those loyal to the British. The struggle for power between the new headmen and guerillas comprising royal princes and soldiers of the disbanded royal army ensued until the latter’s defeat around 1890.
The seeds of political imbalance were thus sowed with the British occupation and are being reaped till today. This is where the Western media, up in arms against the recent reshuffle, falls silent. There is no denying that only political stability will move Myanmar forward, but the legacy of British colonialism that destroyed functioning Burmese institutions is also to blame.
Another aspect that western analysts miss is that militaries have traditionally had a greater role in Southeast Asian governments. Viewing the world from their own prism, these analysts and media men have considered that role excessive and unnecessary.
Unlike the homogenous ethnic and cultural demographic structures of nation-states in the west, those in the east have been multi-ethnic and multi-cultural. In many cases, European imperialists were themselves responsible for creating boundaries of their dominions while not considering local ethnic sensitivities.
That often led to communal tensions. The military was thus employed for maintaining internal stability, giving it an increased role in the government. Although various communities have learned to live with each other over time, militaries in their countries are now an integral part of the decision-making, governance, and policing activities.
In the case of Myanmar today, the military is burdened with the responsibility of keeping a functional government since the political institutions have still not fully developed. It has been performing that role since 1962 and backs the Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP), which has been part of past governments.
Since 2011, however, democratic reforms have reduced the military’s hold on power, and the gradual transition to a non-military government has been afoot.
This week’s developments have brought the focus back to the imbalance that still has not been adjusted despite the attempts during the past decade. The military, accusing the government of the National League for Democracy (NLD) of fraud in the latest election, has announced a state of emergency for a year and handed over power to the commander-in-chief of the armed forces.
–The Daily Mail-CGTN News Exchange Item
