The regime’s violent path to a “flourishing democracy”

Irrawaddy: - Aung Zaw
Thu 30 Aug 2007

The rare demonstrations in Rangoon and beyond are persistent and are likely to continue for some time. But since the regime has arrested and detained several key activists and prominent former student leaders, including Min Ko Naing and Ko Ko Gyi, who led the 1988 uprising, the fragile movement is increasingly faced with the question: who will lead the public and what direction will it take?

The peaceful marches in Rangoon started shortly after Min Ko Naing and prominent activists returned from a religious ceremony at the home of late veteran politician Col Kyi Maung marking the third anniversary of his death.

The “return home” march was spontaneous and caught the attention of curious onlookers, including security officials. After the march, Min Ko Naing and Ko Ko Gyi spoke to the Washington-based radio station Radio Free Asia.

According to the many Burmese at home and abroad who listened to the interview, Min Ko Naing and Ko Ko Gyi spoke out articulately and powerfully but made no call for action to topple the regime. At one point in the interview, Ko Ko Gyi pointed out that the army was enjoying double rights at the military-sponsored National Convention, due to be completed soon.

Perhaps the generals could not accept such criticism. A series of articles in The New Light of Myanmar, the regime’s mouthpiece, contained several forewarnings by government propagandists of a possible showdown and “punishment.”

The regime leaders might have thought it was time to contain Min Ko Naing and other activists because they were the only group whose boldness and defiance were increasingly gaining international attention and recognition. Indeed, if the regime leaders intended to force through their “road map,” Min Ko Naing and his group were a thorn in the their side.

Consequently, thugs and security officials were sent into the streets to deal with the protests.

The junta’s gangs follow and intimidate demonstrators, often beating them and hurling them into waiting trucks. Women are also being beaten, prompting onlookers to angrily intervene and risk arrest themselves.

Anger is widespread over such brutality. Large crowds often make clear their disapproval of the strong-arm methods—“They were upset and angry,” said a Rangoon journalist who reported on the violent dispersal of one group of protesters.

The journalist told me that simmering dissent among the public is approaching boiling point. “If there is bloodshed or shootings, I think there will be uproar like in 1988,” he said.

Until recently, soldiers and riot police have not been seen in public, but thugs and hardcore members of the regime’s mass association known as the Union Solidarity Development Association, together with government security officials, are maintaining “order” on the streets.

This is not the first time the regime has applied such thuggish methods to break up peaceful demonstrations. There were several incidents of mob attacks on democracy activists as early as 1996 and 1997.

In May 2003, pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi and her convoy were attacked by junta-backed mobs in central Burma. The attack was at that time the most serious assault sponsored by the current military leaders, and received international condemnation.

Worldwide condemnation has also greeted the present government-sponsored excesses, but the regime continues to ignore world opinion.

The regime’s current campaign of violence was foretokened in a series of articles in the regime’s mouthpiece repeatedly warning Min Ko Naing, Ko Ko Gyi and other activists that they faced “evil consequences.” The warnings included ominous hints that death could await them.

One recent article penned by Ko Ke warned: “They will get punitive punishment imposed by the people soon. I think the punishment to be inflicted by the people on them may be much more severe than legal action they will face if they continue to commit such acts, and they even may meet their end.”

The article urged activists to be “considerate towards the aspiration of the people to participate in the building of a discipline-flourishing genuine democratic nation.”

Perhaps before the establishment of a “flourishing genuine democratic nation,” the Burmese have to experience the rod of “discipline”—the regime’s “Burmese way to Flourishing Democracy!”