25 - 26 SEPTEMBER 1998
CENTER FOR PACIFIC ASIA STUDIES, STOCKHOLM UNIVERSITY, SWEDEN
The Democracy Movement in Burma Since 1962
In the wake of the unhappy post-8-8-88 and post-9-9-99 moods, and the regime's lack of initiative in undertaking constructive political reform, few conferences have been as incongruous in their location as this one. The sumptuous luxury of the Högberga Gård Conference Centre, located so peacefully high above one of the most scenic spots in Stockholm, was the venue for assessing the political situation in what is by all accounts one of the poorest, and also one of the least peaceful nations in South-east Asia.
By GUSTAAF HOUTMAN
The organizers are to be applauded for holding a conference on such challenging theme at the invitation of the Swedish government. However, scholarship in this field is only in its infancy and, for various reasons, it is difficult to find speakers who can give academic weight and coherence to such a slippery topic as Burmese democracy. In all, seventeen speakers ranged from academic approaches (politics, economics, history, anthropology), human rights (Amnesty International), policy issues (EEC, Swedish Government), ethnic perspectives (Burmese Buddhist, Chin, Karen, Shan), to activism (the Free Burma boycott campaign).A few papers sought to place the suffering once again before us in graphic detail. Though well-intentioned, I felt these contributed little to any intellectual coming-to-terms with Burma's long-standing political problems. Academic papers included Seekins (Okinawa) on the transformation of Rangoon, Hudson-Rodd (Perth) on land rights, and Matthews (Nova Scotia) on Burma's future. Hoadley (Stockholm) gave a comparative perspective on economic syncretism in Burma, Vietnam, and Indonesia. Paul Lim (Brussels) gave us an insight into the complexities of policy making on Burma within the EEC and the problems in relation to normalization of relations with ASEAN. Lundberg (Goteborg) gave a paper on the anthropology of the Burmese student movements in Burma and abroad. Zöllner (Hamburg) presented a portrait of Aung San. Mojeiko (Moscow) drew a witty parallel between Russian and Burmese ideas of democracy and socialism, warning us that not all is what it seems.
In my view, the high points were papers by up-and-coming Burmese scholars who have so far given much academic credit. I very much regretted Chao-Tzang Yawnghwe's last-minute absence, for his work deserves wider circulation; his paper argues against a Balkan model for Burma and favours treating Burma as a political rather than as has been done by the Burmese army and accepted by many a foreign scholar an ethnic problem. He favours improving links between the state and society, not necessarily between the army and ethnic groups. Zaw Oo's (American University) paper sought to come to terms with international perspectives on the democratic struggle. Lian Sakhong's paper on the Chin perspective (later filled out by Aung Lwin (Berlin) from the Karen point of view) on the role of the United Nationalities League for Democracy stood out; not only was he himself involved in negotiations to set up this cross-ethnic alliance, but he was able to present a coherent picture of what federalism means to the Chin and other minority groups. Lian Uk, elected member of parliament from the Chin State, gave us a flavour of what it is like to be a Chin parliamentarian without a functioning parliament. Ying Sita reflected on the significance of 'ethnic nations', and in particular the Shan.
Academic gaps
There is no template for a conference such as this. Burma is only just opening up to foreign scholars. Unlike, for example, Thailand, where indigenous scholars and intellectuals have exercised a significant influence on international academic opinion long-term, Burma unfortunately has suppressed its own intellect, while some pioneer foreign scholars sometimes say supercilious things about this country.
Few scholars have lived in the country for any length of time, and fewer still read or speak any of the Burmese languages. Internationally, academic approaches to Burma are not co-ordinated and, without in-depth studies of the country, opportunism sometimes wins the upper-hand in plugging academic gaps. This sometimes also goes hand-in-hand with politically conservative, some call it 'pragmatic', scholarship that avoids questions that might alienate the regime. To keep Burma's doors open, some academics even play to the regime by doing the sort of research that accords best with its propaganda.
Were one to trace Burma's profile from international academic research, the result is not only outdated and impoverished, but in some areas also often a misleading view of what is and what has been going on in the country. Drawing attention to Khin Nyunt's propaganda that humankind and civilization began in Burma, in my paper I grappled with the role of foreign archaeological and palaeo-anthropological scholarship in the regime's attempt at 'Myanmafication' (replacing Aung San in forging national unity with an impersonal and intangible 'Myanmar culture'); here as the regime's vision of the superiority of 'Myanmar culture' takes shape fossils are beginning to take over from relics, and museums from pagodas.
Improved access to Burma would help, but it cannot solve this problem. Again, a major factor in maturing international scholarship on Burma must be participation by well-informed and trained Burmese academics and intellectuals. Unfortunately, repression of university life means the next generation of Burmese academics have to be trained outside the country. If the international community is indeed serious about helping Burma find its feet, it must nourish this transplanted intellect. Hopefully, when the time comes, these scholars will inform international opinion and contribute constructively to their country's future.
Future politics must orient and adapt to reality. The military characteristically fields international questions about the country by 'correcting misunderstandings'. It does so with great confidence, but without demonstrating even a semblance of having done any serious research to find out what is really happening. I wonder, unless the regime liberalizes Burma's university life, who will have the ability to engage in such 'international misunderstandings' over Myanmar? *
Gustaaf Houtman, Royal Anthropological Institute, E-mail: ghoutman@tesco.net, is author of 'Mental Culture in Burmese Crisis Politics: Aung San Suu Kyi and the National League for Democracy'. Study of Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa Monograph Series No. 33. Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, Institute for the Study of Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa, 1999, 400 pp. ISBN 4-87297-748-3.
This is accessible via the Internet at: http://go.to/Mental_Culture