Editorial Desk :
The military coup in Myanmar on Monday has come as a surprise to many as the military rule in one form or and other was continuing even after the civilian participation under the leadership of Suu Kyi.
Western analysts have questioned the rationale behind the takeover ‘for a year’ alleging fraud in the November elections. The move has also been termed unnecessary because under the Myanmar Constitution the Army still enjoys unlimited powers including the power to veto amendments to its key provisions.
The Myanmar people overwhelmingly voted for Aung San Suu Kyi’s National League for democracy in the November elections. Polls observers including the Carter Center and the People’s Alliance for credible elections declared the elections to be free and fair.
Senior General Min Aung Hlaing, the commander-in-chief of the Army, has pledged ‘to practice the genuine, discipline-flourishing multiparty democratic system in a fair manner’ and has promised another election after the end of an year of emergency, and is seen to have manufactured the plea to justify his action.
Analysts speculate that the general who was to retire not in a distant future had fears in his mind about backlash from the civilian leaders in the government who suffered under their command during pro-democracy movement for decades.
Myanmar study groups make mention of personal tensions that had been prevailing between Aung San Suu Kyi and General Min Aung Hlaing as they rarely met since 2015. They also refer to institutional antagonism between the Army and the NDL which was gaining in popularity.
It is known to all that Suu Kyi faced domestic and international criticism for doing little to criticise the Army’s repressive actions against the minorities and persecution of the Rohingya Muslims 1.1 million of whom were driven into Bangladesh from their ancestral homes. Instead she went to defend the Army in the International Criminal Court. She refrained from diminishing the Army’s power constitutionally, legally or financially.
Suu Kyi has squandered her sky-high popularity and international support for her fight for democracy and human rights. She did nothing to bring meaningful change to strengthen democracy and human rights situation to loosen the military grip. The present coup leader says he invoked the Constitutional to intervene by declaring emergency allegedly for election fraud. Myanmar army never had any respect for election, so his reasoning has no leg to stand.
According to New York Times under Ms. Aung San Suu Kyi’s government, in Myanmar’s frontier lands, where other ethnic minorities are clustered, are more conflict-ridden now than they were a decade ago. And poets, painters and students have been jailed for peacefully speaking their minds: In Myanmar today, 584 people are either political prisoners or are awaiting trial on those kinds of charges, according to the Assistance Association for Political Prisoners. Ethnic conflicts in border areas have increased.
The Secretary of State of United States while condemning the military escalation and insisting on reversing the situation immediately observed “that the United States stands with the people of Burma in their aspirations for democracy, freedom, peace, and development.”
Such commitment from the United States to people’s aspirations for democracy and freedom conveys a wider meaning for the aspirants of democracy and human rights. Because of modern technology dictatorship has become easy and democracy cannot survive alone.
The present change in Myanmar makes no sense if it is merely a change from military rule with Suu Kyi to military government without Suu Kyi.
The military coup in Myanmar on Monday has come as a surprise to many as the military rule in one form or and other was continuing even after the civilian participation under the leadership of Suu Kyi.
Western analysts have questioned the rationale behind the takeover ‘for a year’ alleging fraud in the November elections. The move has also been termed unnecessary because under the Myanmar Constitution the Army still enjoys unlimited powers including the power to veto amendments to its key provisions.
The Myanmar people overwhelmingly voted for Aung San Suu Kyi’s National League for democracy in the November elections. Polls observers including the Carter Center and the People’s Alliance for credible elections declared the elections to be free and fair.
Senior General Min Aung Hlaing, the commander-in-chief of the Army, has pledged ‘to practice the genuine, discipline-flourishing multiparty democratic system in a fair manner’ and has promised another election after the end of an year of emergency, and is seen to have manufactured the plea to justify his action.
Analysts speculate that the general who was to retire not in a distant future had fears in his mind about backlash from the civilian leaders in the government who suffered under their command during pro-democracy movement for decades.
Myanmar study groups make mention of personal tensions that had been prevailing between Aung San Suu Kyi and General Min Aung Hlaing as they rarely met since 2015. They also refer to institutional antagonism between the Army and the NDL which was gaining in popularity.
It is known to all that Suu Kyi faced domestic and international criticism for doing little to criticise the Army’s repressive actions against the minorities and persecution of the Rohingya Muslims 1.1 million of whom were driven into Bangladesh from their ancestral homes. Instead she went to defend the Army in the International Criminal Court. She refrained from diminishing the Army’s power constitutionally, legally or financially.
Suu Kyi has squandered her sky-high popularity and international support for her fight for democracy and human rights. She did nothing to bring meaningful change to strengthen democracy and human rights situation to loosen the military grip. The present coup leader says he invoked the Constitutional to intervene by declaring emergency allegedly for election fraud. Myanmar army never had any respect for election, so his reasoning has no leg to stand.
According to New York Times under Ms. Aung San Suu Kyi’s government, in Myanmar’s frontier lands, where other ethnic minorities are clustered, are more conflict-ridden now than they were a decade ago. And poets, painters and students have been jailed for peacefully speaking their minds: In Myanmar today, 584 people are either political prisoners or are awaiting trial on those kinds of charges, according to the Assistance Association for Political Prisoners. Ethnic conflicts in border areas have increased.
The Secretary of State of United States while condemning the military escalation and insisting on reversing the situation immediately observed “that the United States stands with the people of Burma in their aspirations for democracy, freedom, peace, and development.”
Such commitment from the United States to people’s aspirations for democracy and freedom conveys a wider meaning for the aspirants of democracy and human rights. Because of modern technology dictatorship has become easy and democracy cannot survive alone.
The present change in Myanmar makes no sense if it is merely a change from military rule with Suu Kyi to military government without Suu Kyi.
