On November 8, 2015, the people of Myanmar voted for the first time in a free national election since 1990.
Suu Kyi’s National league for Democracy (NlD) registered a landslide victory across the country and the Army-backed Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP) tasted a humiliating defeat.
Now, the world awaits a peaceful transition of power from the Army to the country’s most popular party NlD so that Myanmar could step into a new era of governance.
However, nothing much has transpired between the ruling junta and Suu Kyi since the election results were declared.
The Army rather than cancelling the outcome of the elections this time around like the 1990 general election when the NlD had won thumping majority has quietly accepted the defeat and openly welcomed Suu Kyi to take over.
Though the political system is not directly under its control, yet entrenched power system fundamentally demands the approval of the junta at all levels of administration.
As Suu Kyi is fully aware about the need to work with the generals, she is treading very carefully post-election even when she has won full mandate to command power.
Unlike the 1990s, both domestic and global scenario is in her favour and the generals are also in a mood to make way for a changing Myanmar.
At this juncture, we need to have a look at how democratic Suu Kyi is and the events around the election before she brings a true democracy to her people who have high esteem and hope from her. When the allegation of dictatorship are made against the Tatmadaw (Army) for consistently maintaining a top-down approach in governing the country, the way the NlD chief runs the party, Suu Kyi seems no less autocratic.
The NlD is simply a one woman show and she hardly trusts anyone beyond a coterie of small group of leaders in the party. Another serious allegation against Suu Kyi is that the ultra-nationalist monks led by Ashin Wirathu during the 2007 ‘Saffron Revolution’ who fought street battles with the Government forces came mainly in support of her party.
Even organisations like the Young Monks Union (Association), which once led violent protests and spread messages for ethnic cleansing, provided support to the NlD in the past. Indeed the NlD never wanted to annoy the majority of the Burmans who constitute 90 per cent of the total population of the country, without whose support, the party would have not come to power.
That is why Suu Kyi maintained a deafening silence during the election on the issue of the hapless Rohingya Muslims.
These all demonstrate her scant regard for protection of basic rights and liberties of a minority group of people within her own country.
Hence, she could hardly be regarded as an icon of democracy as she displays little sense in building inner party democracy. Moreover, she continues to avoid raising issues of the Rohingyas.
Besides, Suu Kyi seemed to be extremely arrogant and overconfident when she declared in a Press conference on November 5, 2015, three days before the election, that if her party wins the election and forms the Government, she would be “above the President” of Myanmar, knowing fully well that she is currently barred from holding the post as per the 2008 Constitution.
Candidness may be very good on occasions, but for politicians like her who is just out of the clutches of the iron-fisted Tatmadaw these could be potentially explosive.
Another aspect of Myanmar politics today is the growing role of the Buddhist nationalist forces that showed its ugly heads during the election and much before also. However with the overwhelming victory of the NlD, the future course of action of these forces warrants close observation. The victory of the NlD was all the more remarkable given that the ruling USDP had the advantage of having the Government machinery at its disposal and the explicit support of the Buddhist nationalist organisations like the Organisation for the Protection of Race and Religion (MaBaTha).
It is strongly realised that with the growing spectre of Islamic fundamentalist forces like the Islamic State (ISIS), the relevance and support for the MaBaTha which promotes its narrative that Buddhism is under threat from Islam, would remain an integral part of the future discourse of Myanmar politics.
This MaBaTha and the 969 movement which preceded it, unlike any other Buddhist organisations in Myanmar has directly entered the political arena and now, very few in the country would be dared to bring forth an alternative perspective on Buddhism.
last, but not the least, the Tatmadaw would remain in power till a complete overhauling of the current Constitution is done. Its role and responsibility as a stabilising force of the nation would be critical in building future political institutions in the country.
Myanmar’s residual political complexities could never be solved under the current Constitution that gives its Army sweeping powers and ensures the full safeguard of its institutional interests.
Besides, there is no single provision in the Constitution under which inappropriate behaviour of the Army could be challenged.
Though the Army has changed its boots to an elected Government in early 2011 under President Thein Sein, it was not politically viable to bring a full review of the Constitution.
But the discussion on the most of the manifestly undemocratic provisions was brought to light in Parliament. The amendments to clauses preventing Suu Kyi to be President and the requirement of 75 per cent of votes in Parliament to allow amendments were finally stalled by the Army in July 2015.
It would be an uphill task for the NlD to amend the Constitution as it would simply mean forbidding the Army from its most privileged position in the Government.
Their intention to continue to have a grip over the Government is very much evident when they swapped their uniforms for longyis (Burmese Sarongs) and made way to Parliament through their USDP.
This shift in power in the name of democracy has hardly introduced any substantial reform in Myanmar’s polity. Whosoever comes to power under the 2008 Constitution of Myanmar, the all-powerful Defence and Home Ministries would be with the Army through which it could easily control the nerves of administration in the country.
Understandably, the historic election in Myanmar has created a lot of euphoria that Suu Kyi will herald a new century to the South East Asia’s poorest country wherein 2.5 million children from an overall population of 51.4 million are still malnourished.
Its majority of the population nearing 70 per cent are living in rural areas in crushing destitution. But for the common people — a country deprived of basic democratic rights for the last five decades by its Army — victory of their beloved “Mother Suu” or Daw Suu or Amay Suu means a lot. And they are waiting for the change of guard. It is another story that very little progress, save a few close doors meeting, has been made in this direction.
U Win Htein, a senior party member and one of Suu Kyi’s closest advisers, said, “The first intention was to soothe their (Army) nerves, that they would not be harmed. We just said we didn’t want revenge, that we didn’t have personal grudge and that we wanted to move forward and talk about the future.”
Even Suu Kyi thinks that it would be really unwise to push the generals because it might create immediate confusion and chaos in the country. It means the generals do matter and still the boots have a solid imprint on the entire country.
It seems the NlD is willing to wait and watch how the generals smoothly oversee the peaceful transfer of power. But surely with the generals in full control, Suu Kyi would only be able to promise a quasi-democratic kind of governance for the time being.
By any measure, Myanmar could not be considered as fully democratic country unless the much needed reforms are made by an extensive set of amendments to the current Constitution.
Therefore, there is no immediate hope that Myanmar will be ushering into an age of democracy as most Western nations are expecting.
It might take years.
(The writer is an independent political analyst based in Delhi)