Any nation transitioning from authoritarian to democratic
system would hope that the process be relatively peaceful and orderly as in the
case of Burma instead of violent and treacherous as in Egypt. But whether that is
realizable or not, or what could be prepared in advance in order to avoid the
kind of turmoil that upheaves the society and misdirects the revolution – the
question is never too early to ask even though there is no definitive answer.
All totalitarian regimes want to prevent other political
parties from participating in the government of the state. Therefore a large
vacuum is created when the ruling clique is overthrown since the opposition
lacks the organizational and administrative skills to run an election or to rule
the nation. By contrast in a democratic country - for example in the United
States - whether the Democrats or Republicans occupy the White House and
Congress the other party still retains a minority role and contributes to the
direction of the nation. Therefore any new leadership would bring along a new
staff with practical experiences to make the transition more or less smoother.
Despite the military background President Thein Sein of
Myanmar realized very early the need to democratize the country. He began the
process by releasing the main opposition figure Aun San Suu Kyi, then allowed her
party to participate in the parliamentary election. That gave the NLD (National
League for Democracy) the opportunity to have a role in governing the country.
If Aun Sang Suu Kyi is elected president in 2015 she would be supported by a
staff with practical experiences. Democracy means compromise and the NLD by
then would have three or four years navigating amongst the aspirations of the
population, the interests of the powerful military clique, pressures from China
and the religious rift between the Buddhist majority and Muslim minority.
By contrast in Egypt President Mubarak was overthrown abruptly
by a spontaneous mass movement. The opposition did not have time to be
organized and were not ready to rule the country. Although the population generally
approved democracy as a goal but they did not give support to any specific
political party since none stood out during the uprising. That vacuum brought the
Muslim Brotherhood to power since they were better organized and had the
backing of the clergymen. This party then pushed for a religious agenda that met
fierce resistance from a large segment of the population who demanded a secular
and democratic state. The mass protest in July that led to the overthrow of President
Morsi carried the risk of a civil war and is a step backward from democracy.
Burma has one additional advantage thanks to the international
reputation of Aun San Suu Kyi. The democratic movement received a wide range of
support from the West and Japan ranging from diplomatic pressure to the
relaxation of economic blockade, and mentoring programs to institute the
banking system and investment laws. By contrast even though billions of dollars
were poured into Egypt that amount was mostly directed to the military since
the U.S. and Europe did not find strong democratic allies to back up.
This article does not examine the social and historical factors
that heavily influence the direction of any revolution – this would require elaborated
research work. The main point is to urge any authoritarian regime to have
courage and open the door immediately for democratic reforms. Otherwise it is
unavoidable that a spontaneous mass movement would erupt someday to overthrow
the ruling class, but then the transition would be very messy and the whole
nation could pay a terrible price to regain stability and prosperity.
No comments:
Post a Comment