Eighteen months ago, no one would have anticipated that two of the world's most eminent women, each arch critics of the Myanmar government from opposite sides of the world, could have reached supportive conclusions about changes in one of the world's previously most repressive states.
The western world's icon of democracy, Aung San Suu Kyi, after being held under house arrest for some 15 years since 1989, spoke positively about the reforms instituted by the new president of Myanmar, Thein Sein, a former military man who was prime minister under a junta anathema to the internal opposition and external western powers. And during the first week of December 2011, Hillary Clinton, on the first visit of a US secretary of state in half a century, spoke of the progress that had been made under the new government. Both women want continued reforms and progress, but even their guarded optimism could not diminish what has been a startling and welcome set of changes. Whether they are ephemeral or sustainable is one critical issue.
Some believe that democracy, however defined, is just around the corner, while others consider that these reforms are simply window dressing for continuing military control and the denial of democracy and a better life for the diverse Myanmar peoples. Neither are correct.
A half century ago, after the coup of 1962, the military formed the Burma Socialist Programme Party under military domination and stipulated that once one joined the party, one could never resign, thus indicating its attempt to hold perpetual control. It has ruled directly and indirectly throughout most of Burma/Myanmar's independent history since 1948. Under the new government headed by Sein, inaugurated in the spring of 2011, that control continues through a number of constitutional provisions. These constitutional controls are supplemented by a pervasive government party that swept 80% of the legislative seats and is military dominated.
The armed forces or Tatmadaw have continuously articulated their core concerns. Primary is that the military is the only institution that can hold the multi-ethnic state together, and thus its continuing role is essential. National unity and state sovereignty are vital, and the military's responsibility in maintaining them have been pursued with a bombastic vigour that is not simply propaganda, but reflects deeply held nationalistic sentiments. If these elements and military autonomy within the state structure are maintained, then reforms are possible in economic, political and social fields.
But if the reformers are sincere, then why now? Cynics point to the desire of Myanmar to host the 2014 Asean summit as a prime motivating factor. The critics maintain that these reforms should be discounted as superficial changes, likely to be reversed after that date.
