LOOKING AT BURMA'S POLITICAL CULTURE

With headlines declaring a political stalemate and international efforts for promoting dialogue stalled, many of those outside Burma are grappling for an understanding of what makes the Burmese political mind tick. On the following pages, Burmese from varied walks of life share their views on the mental culture surrounding Burmese political thinking. What do they see as the cultural and social influences that have an impact on the way people think of politics? How much of a role do religion and traditional values play? And what does it all mean for the future of Burma?


Anonyomous Interview
The person interviewed here currently resides in Burma and has asked not to be identified.

Q: Do you feel that there is anything unique in the way that Burmese think of politics?

A: Well, I'll speak from my own experience. I was born during the colonial period and I grew up under the Japanese occupation. We then went through some years of independence, which were equally turbulent, because while we achieved independence in 1948, the insurrection by the ethnic minorities broke out in 1949. So the country has never been peaceful or stable. Such experiences influence the way people think and feel about politics. You know that in Burma, political theory was studied only at the university level, not the secondary level. I went to college in 1954, and graduated in 1957. In those days, there were only three colleges and universities in all of Burma. The year I graduated, there were only 700 graduates total, from all the institutions combined. So back then, there was limited awareness of political thought. Today, we cannot even come together to discuss politics.

Q: Do you think that there's a difference in the way various ethnic groups think of politics?

A: I suppose. No one can really escape that. The economic situation is very bad and economics and politics are bedfellows. And as members of a minority, we feel that even more. When you suffer much, you would like to speak out, but you are afraid. It's a very repressive government. There is no freedom. We can think, but we cannot speak out.

Q: What role has Christianity played with regard to people's political thinking?

A: Historically, even before they became Chris-tians, many of the minorities were persecuted and were very much afraid of the Burmese kings. After Christianity was introduced, they were accused of accepting the white man's religion and were isolated because of it. But when the mission schools were established, before they were nationalized, many of the Burman Buddhists attended these schools. They began to appreciate the value of learning in mission schools. So faith and education became very closely related, because through education, one was lifted up and could find a place in the society. It is when you become educated, that you can have a broader understanding of things, that you can stand up for yourself and others. For those who were educated, for those who made their way into the world, they learned to speak up and be politically active. But under this oppressive government, not even a majority group like the Burmans, can speak out. To speak out makes you an enemy of the State.

Q: What do you feel is the attitude of the average person in Burma regarding politics?

A: It would be negative. Very negative. I would say generally, very few people would have a positive view towards politics. But you know, politics, if it is good, can improve the economic situation. But right now, people can't afford to think in those terms. The farmers don't even talk about the oppression and hardships they are experiencing because they live in fear. They might be overheard and arrested, put in jail. Most people have a very negative attitude towards the government, but within Burma proper, we cannot speak out.

Q: Do you think that there's a difference between those living in urban areas, who perhaps have greater access to education, and those in rural areas, with regard to how they think about politics?

A: We all feel the same. In some rural areas, I will go attend a meeting or a training session and the secretary will say, "No political talk." But eventually, we will all talk. Not in a formal or official manner, but privately. That's how much we all fear the government. Because they have spies everywhere and people feel that "Big Brother" is always watching.

Q: Do you feel that there is a divide along religious lines - between Christians and Buddhists?

A: No, because Christians live cheek-by-jaw with Buddhists. We are not divided along religious lines. The government has used Buddhism to manipulate situations, but not even the Buddhists themselves like this. Friends of mine who are Buddhists, who are well educated and who hold important positions in the government - even they don't favor this manipulation. They know that the regime is not sincere. The people know that because they are suffering, aren't they? People see through the military's behavior.

Q: In some countries, Christian churches are active politically in the sense of a peace and justice movement. Is there an opportunity for churches inside Burma to play a role in this regard?

A: No. Because the government would come down on any group that would come together for a political purpose. You know that the church is not in the "good book" of the government. Right now, we have no freedom to even build churches, so we build Christian "centers." Actually, there are only a few churches remaining because in the "black" and "grey" areas [areas of insurgency] so many of the churches have been displaced, or burnt down. In one ethnic state, in one association, there were over one hundred twenty churches two years ago, now only forty remain. There is supposed to be religious freedom but in reality that freedom is growing smaller and smaller. It is not possible to come together for a political purpose. Privately we'll do that, but not in an organized way. We dare not do that. We can come together for cooperation, for fellowship, for mutual spiritual encouragement. We may not talk politics, but we feel the burden of politics.

Q: Some people have said that within Burmese culture the concept of a leader or a hero is very important. Do you agree?

A: I think that's true. I think that's true of anyone who is living in an oppressed situation. Most people in Burma support Aung San Suu Kyi. But I don't think they would have the courage to get actively involved. I think secretly everyone supports her because she has the courage to stand up against the government.

Q: If people are trying to promote dialogue and move Burma toward peace, are there aspects of the way the various sides think that must be understood?

A: That's a difficult question. Speaking off the cuff, when you want to have reconciliation, there has to be mutual trust. And I don't think that there is, in this situation.

Q: Are there ways to achieve that?

A: Right at this moment, I am pessimistic, because I don't think that there can be any mutual trust between the parties. If the government can talk with the opposition group [the National League for Democracy], that will be a step, but you know very well that there has not been a real talk at this point. Maybe an outsider can see more clearly than we within the country. We're so much a part of it, I think that sometimes we can not really see clearly. But of course, we have the advantage of living through it all.

Q: What must one understand about the military's thinking?

A: We can understand the military only to a certain extent. Now they are afraid, so they are holding on to power. Look what's happening in Indonesia, right? And at one time Indonesia was their model. So I think they are afraid. And the more afraid you are, the more intense you will be in your repression. I really don't have any direct dealing with military higher-ups, but we hear about what they are doing. You know the papers and the mass media are full of what they are doing - the good things. But we don't hear the truth. The soldiers do not criticize their superiors. Sometimes I ask the younger officers, "Why are you in the army?" And you know very well why they're in the army - because there is power, there is the opportunity of filling your pockets, by hook or by crook.

Q: If you asked people to explain what democracy means to them, how do you think they would describe it?

A: Well, it would mean orderliness, it would mean speaking up, it would mean exchange of ideas. But I think they would still have this sense of hesitancy to speak out. Because within our culture you don't really speak out openly, like Westerners do, for example.

Q: Do you think this cultural tendency not to speak out holds people back from being politically active?

A: I cannot say for sure, but look at what happened in 1988 - people could stand it no longer so they erupted. And then they were put down ruthlessly. Once bitten twice shy, so people are afraid to do it again. But who knows? If the situation becomes unbearable it could happen again. Something can spark it off, like the universities - the students are the ones who have the courage to say or do something. The common people, the working people - they are afraid of having their rice pot broken.

Q: Do you think there's something particular to Burmese culture that accounts for the student activism?

A: I don't really think so. I think it has to do with education. People become enlightened even if it contradicts their culture or traditions. In 1988 when students went out to protest, they paid homage to their teachers before going out. They did their homage - bowing down, prostrating themselves before their teachers and asking for forgiveness. Then they went out to protest.

Q: In your mind, what accounts for the decades of military rule in Burma?

A: It's very simple. They hold the guns. And the people don't. You know that no one is allowed to possess a gun. All the guns were surrendered in 1988. For example, my brother is a hunter and he owned a rifle that he was forced to surrender in 1988. Since then, he has paid the license fee every year - can you believe that? - because he still has hopes of going hunting. Now, however, you fear that if you are found with a gun, you may be dragged off to jail and never heard from again.

Interview with U Aung Zaw
U Aung Zaw is a journalist and the editor of The Irrawaddy, a monthly magazine published in Thailand. A former student activist who was severely tortured in Burma's Insein prison during the 1988 pro-democracy uprising, he now writes on Burmese politics for several leading publications.

Q: Do you think there is something unique to Burmese culture that has an impact on how people think of politics?

A: There seems to be this mentality within Burmese culture that if one person is gaining more prominence or becoming a rising star, the others try to pull him or her down, saying, "No, no, he can't do that. He has to be at the same level as me!" Some people say that we Burmese in particular have a problem with this mentality. But this type of thinking is everywhere, in every community and society. One sees political in-fighting, conflicts, jealousy, that sort of thing, everywhere. But Burma is unique in one way. Burma has been isolated for over thirty years and people have been psychologically paralyzed. People are living without even realizing that their thinking is being damaged by the military government. If you look at the backgrounds of the top military leaders, they all have served in the psychological warfare department. Recently, General Than Shwe gave a speech on Armed Forces Day, where he stressed that "psychological warfare is very important." In public he said that! Can you imagine? A modern state leader talking about psychological warfare, about attacking the enemy, crushing the destructive elements, and using the media as a tool? This is the kind of closed society in which we live. It isn't surprising that Burma's problems may be more complicated than those of other countries that enjoy a more open, transparent governments. They have the space to voice their concerns and their dissent. In Burma it is not the case.

Q: What about the military? Do you feel you can understand their thinking?

A: One of my friends used to say that it's hard to understand the Burmese military, but at the same time, he could see why they do the things they do. That's because they are not a foreign body. They are part of us, but a lot of people don't want to accept that fact. A lot of opposition groups want to treat them like an evil coming from outside, but they're not. You can see the actions of the military, the way they confront the opposition, the way they treat the Burmese people, the way they manipulate the students and the media. As a journalist I see a lot of Burmese who are doing similar things here in Thailand and elsewhere. Even though they oppose the government, they often behave the same way, instituting the same kind of practices within their own organizations. So that's why I don't see the military as something to abolish. That's why I feel that we have to be very critical in looking at each other and looking at ourselves too. Ask why the military does something, instead of just reacting to everything. Based on my experience - because that's all that I really understand - I think that the democracy movement needs to be more critical. We need more critical thinkers, more open-minded Burmese who want to promote democracy in Burma. It is not too late for a revolution within a revolution. We talk about a revolution, but we are not revolutionary enough, not critical enough. We really need to examine ourselves. The problem is not only with the military government, but also among our people. But still, I am quite optimistic. I think we can break through; we can change. But to begin, we need to change ourselves, our attitudes. I don't mean to criticize anyone, but to be critical. Let's not have a one-sided view, but look at the other side and analyze the whole situation.

Q: Is it possible for people who are living in Burma under a military regime to be "revolutionary" in their thinking?

A: In some sense they might have more of a chance, because they are living with "Big Brother" every day. I think a lot of Burmese there are stronger, more committed than those on the outside. We are sometimes spoiled here. Here we have the chance to explore, to change ourselves, change our attitudes. In 12 years of living in exile, we have had so many opportunities to change. The sad thing is that we don't take advantage of these opportunities. Some Burmese, including myself, miss opportunities to become more constructive, more productive for our movement. We haven't yet practiced democracy, within ourselves. We just keep saying, "We want revolution, we want democracy." But democracy begins inside. The regime says, "We are on the road to democracy." No one believes that be-cause democracy doesn't come in a box all wrapped up where you say, "Okay here it is." It's not like that! It comes from inside. If you don't become a democrat yourself, how can you try to change a system of government? Let me give you an example. It's what I call "media culture." A lot of people don't understand media culture. Free speech and freedom of the press are part of a democracy, and part of the process that we have to practice now. Now. Not ten years from now, not when Daw Aung San Suu Kyi has restored democracy or when the NLD comes into power. Some people have said, "Don't write this. Don't report that. You will have a chance when we have democracy." We are strongly committed to the democracy movement, but people didn't understand why we would publish articles that might be critical. I say, "Do it now." If you don't do it now it will be too late. At first I was quite sad and worried about my country, about my people, because of these attitudes. But it has gotten better. Now these people say, "Okay, the media is part of the movement and the media should serve as a watchdog." Look at Thailand. This is how Thailand advanced to democracy within a short time. I was here in 1988 when the Thai military was still strongly in control. I saw how General Chavalit and those in his government were trying to pull Thailand back to square one. But Thai democrats and the media were strong. They wouldn't give up. That's why Thailand is where it is now. That's the example we must tell each other. We cannot just keep putting out the party line. We cannot keep repeating nonsensical slogans about the junta.

Q: How much influence do you think Buddhism has on Burmese society?

A: I have a very short answer. Buddhism has helped people cope under this repressive government. It helps people cope with daily hardships that include more than issues like skyrocketing prices. They also include those situations when Military Intelligence comes to knock on your door, the threats and intimidation. My mother survived, and my brother survived, Burmese people survived, because of Buddhism. We try to cope with all this through Buddhist teachings.

Q: What do you think accounts for decades of military rule?

A: I think Ne Win is the reason Burma has suffered. In 1962 Ne Win came to power. In 1988, we got some junior Ne Wins. Now we've got Khin Nyunt. I'm afraid in the next thirty years we'll have more junior, junior, Khin Nyunts. And that's what we have to prevent. We have to find a way to educate people not to have another dictator. But even within the government they know that they have no real "man-power," they have no human resources. They realize it and that's why they are very insecure. Burma couldn't come out of its shell until 1995 or 1996, not even to participate in international conferences and seminars. This was not only because of the international boycott, but because of their own fear. They were very fearful of being in touch with the world because they had isolated themselves. When Burma did come out of its shell and try to enter forums, such as ASEAN, it was like a medieval creature, a dinosaur. The rulers have a very bad self-image.

Q: Some people think that Western influence has been more harmful than beneficial when it comes to Burma, that Westerners don't really understand the intricacies of what's happening there and that condemnation of the military has further entrenched the regime in its thinking. Do you agree?

A: I don't know whether Western influences, have been counterproductive or harmful, but the West may naively believe that putting sanctions on Burma or making a strong statement about the junta will create change. This is not the case in Burma. That's why I said that Burma is quite unique. The mindset is very different. Even for the Burmese it's sometimes hard to understand. Because of the censorship and media control, those inside the country don't really understand the nature of the government that has ruled Burma for over 30 years. So that's a problem. Some people are critical of ASEAN, for their lack of involvement. For example, when Aung San Suu Kyi was released from house arrest in 1995, ASEAN's leaders didn't make enough gestures to support her, or the results of the 1990 elections. They don't try to assess the situation in Burma, even though they are close neighbors. They don't urge the government to change. That is sad. The pressure applied thus far has not shaken the government in Rangoon. The US sanctions were not enough pressure to make the government change. The sad thing is also, apart from Burma, people now are generally very skeptical of sanctions. They are seen as dated weapons for change. So in that way, we have to be critical and ask why aren't sanctions bringing about change in Burma? Perhaps it's not enough pressure, perhaps we have to find another way to move the junta to change. Or, is there enough space to share power between the NLD and the junta? Should we give them more space? The West and ASEAN nations have to ponder and assess the situation carefully if they really have a sincere intention of seeing change in Burma.

Interview with Saw Kapi
Saw Kapi was a student activist in 1988 before fleeing to Thailand. He holds a Masters Degree in Economics from Williams College and currently works with the University of San Francisco. Saw Kapi also is one of the founders and Secretary of the Policy Affairs Division of the Karen National League.

Q: Do you think there's a different mental culture among ethnic Burmans and other ethnic groups when it comes to politics?

A: Yes, and I'm not saying this in a negative way. The majority of Burman people are engaged, active and responsive when it comes to politics. They seem to be more responsive to the effects of their rulers. Most ethnic people - the majority of whom are rural people - feel if they can live in peace, and not feel that there is a government or a ruler over them, that is best. That is what they really think of politics on a daily basis. Living peacefully, trying not to disturb anyone. That is the political culture of most - I'm not saying all - rural people. By adopting that culture, the Karen people living in rural areas are less active in political life.

Q: Are you saying that, given the choice, the ethnic groups would prefer less governmental control in their lives?

A: In a way, yes. But not only with regard to a central government. For example, if there is no need to have someone to oversee a village, that is considered to be best. Not only do people prefer "less government" - they would prefer that there be no government at all. Historically, the need for a village headman, or a hierarchical political structure, has not been that important. We had leaders chosen by the villagers for different and specific occasions, but nothing like a formal government or a monarch. And that is one of the reasons that the Karens did not develop a structure of ruling chiefs. We would have someone to represent us when there was a need in dealing with other villages, but for ourselves, the idea of a village chief or headman was not prominent. In pre-British times, the Karens did not develop kingdoms. We did not have kings. There are some anthropologists who argue that kings are mentioned in Karen oral history, but there is no historical evidence of it.

During British times the Karens developed a certain level of political consciousness and they tried to organize themselves, but they didn't push for the emergence of a single leader. In the mid-eighteen hundreds the KNA (Karen National Association) was formed and then later, the Karen National Organization (KNO) and the Karen Central Organization (KCO), the Karen Youth Organization (KYO) and the KNU (Karen National Union). Even though we developed a political consciousness and the need to have organizations to respond to British rule and the political environment around us, the Karen did not seem to want one individual to take the lead. They had a more collective approach. It was a historical trend and even in contemporary [times], I think the Karen prefer it that way. I mentioned the KNA, which was formed in 1891, and was the earliest Karen political organization. The Karen felt that when the British came to Burma, the Karen had to have an organization to represent them in the broader political context, which was British Burma. So leaders emerged. Again, this happened more out of necessity than something particular to Karen culture.

Q: Do you feel that there are aspects of Karen culture that have had an impact on the thinking of Karen political leaders?

A: There have been two driving forces behind Karen political thinking and Karen political activism. One is simply a response to the central government. That in itself has been a driving force in modern times. The second is the influence of Christianity, and the influence of some of the twentieth century political leaders. Many of the Karen leaders are Christians, though let me acknowledge that we also have non-Christian leaders. One aspect of Christianity is a focus on the concepts of truth and justice. That part of Christianity played a political role for us. It moved people to resist or to stand up for truth and justice. For example, whether we want to accept it or not, the teaching "we shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free" has had an impact on the KNU [Karen National Union] leadership today. This either consciously or unconsciously plays a very important role in the way these leaders think, the way that I personally think, and the way young Karen political activists think of politics. Also, many Karen political activists and leaders became familiar with Martin Luther King's writings. The works of Mahatma Gandhi have had an influence as well, even though he was not Christian, but a Hindu political leader.

Q: How has Burma's isolation over the last few decades influenced the way people think politically?

A: The current military regime has actively discouraged political involvement by the people. It's as if politics is the domain of only a few people, of the military and the elite. They don't see the people as having a part in the political process. The military has been able to get away with this, in part, because people have been isolated from the outside world. There is also an attempt by the regime to "foreignize" issues related to politics. For example, in the case of human rights, the regime tries to say that this concept is not Burmese, that it is very foreign. Whatever you do in politics that is against the regime, they try to attribute to foreigners. They point back to the colonial period and they say, "This is due to foreign influence." And some Burmese accept this. When the Burmese military regime tells them these things, a lot of them don't know that it is wrong. This is because of the decades of isolation.

Q: What influence do you feel has living under military rule had on they way people think of politics?

A: It's had a great deal of influence and I realized that only when I came out of the country. I did not realize that while still living in Burma. Growing up, I believed much of what the media inside the country purported. When you are told something day after day, you tend to take it as being fact. Because accurate information was not available to us, I really thought the military regime was working for us and that they really were trying to protect us. It becomes very blurred. They put seeds of doubt in our minds, that these foreigners, or in their own words, "neocolonialists," will come and they will invade us or try to colonize. So people even tend to have that doubt, that suspicion, of foreigners all the time. Even the picture the regime painted of the ethnic movement - the Burmese media always mentioned that the ethnic movements lacked defined political goals. As an ethnic Karen, I was sympathetic to the Karen people; I did not actually believe the regime when it said, "These are a bunch of robbers and thieves who destroy everything in their path." But on the other hand, I found myself thinking that maybe it was true, maybe the ethnic groups did not have real political goals. Until I left my hometown and came to the border in 1988, I did not really understand that the ethnic movement was historically significant in Burmese history. I learned then that the ethnic movements were significant during the early independence era - 1948, '49, and later - in the early fifties. But when General Ne Win came into power the ethnic struggle was reduced to "armed robberies." That is what we were told and that's what the media reported.

Q: Do you think that people inside the country today still believe what the military is telling them?

A: Probably not. By now, I think that my friends inside Burma who are the same age as I am realize that something is wrong. Something is amiss with what the regime is saying. I think that people now have a little more access to international media than before. There are some people who can afford to have a satellite dish and they can watch some foreign programs. There is radio. But the main reason that people don't believe the regime's claims is that the regime itself is very self-contradictory. They try to say that this or that is foreign and therefore bad, but people now may find that difficult to believe. If you look at many of Burma's generals - and many people who have good connections with the regime - they are rich. And they are in and out of the country all of the time. They go to Singapore and other counties in the region, to the West. Many people question why they are doing this. On the one hand, the regime is saying, "Fear foreign influence, fear foreign power." But on the other hand, many people on the inside know that the generals and a lot of their supporters are very fond of dollars, of hard currency and of what the outside world has to offer. Based on daily life experience, people no longer believe the regime.