Connect with us

Southeast Asia

Good Local Governance and the Urgency of Quality Public Policy

Published

on

The progress of an area is very much determined by the ability and success in implementing development. The success of development is mainly determined by the factor whether or not a public policy is implemented according to community needs. Government policy has a high role in influencing the success or failure of improved community welfare. In the theory and practice of modern government it is taught that to create the good governance requires decentralization of government.

The condition of post-reform Indonesia has given the authority and power distribution independently to the regions to manage and manage their own households, which is known as regional autonomy and decentralization. Regional autonomy is a form of government response to the various demands of society for state order and governance. This is a signal that democratic life has developed in a country, due to the need for society to obtain better and more responsive policies.

One of the alternatives for realizing good and responsive policies is through regional autonomy. With the change in the strategic environment in the local government system in Indonesia. This is marked by the enactment of Law Number 22 of 1999 then changing to Law Number 32 of 2004 and becoming Law Number 23 of 2014 concerning Regional Government providing opportunities for regions, both provinces and districts / cities to have the authority to regulate and take care of the interests of the local community according to their own initiatives based on the aspirations of the community by not violating the prevailing laws and regulations.

Policy implementation is not part of a mechanism process, where each actor automatically does whatever must be done in accordance with the policy-making scenario, but is an activity process that is often influenced by several factors that are significant enough to achieve policy goals and objectives as well as conflicts of interest between the actors involved. , both as managers, field officers and target groups. To achieve the goal of regional autonomy, good governance is needed.

Good governance is a series of processes that are applied in organizations, both private and public, to make decisions. The implementation of good governance is a prerequisite for every government to realize the aspirations of society, achieve the goals and ideals of a state.

The implementation of regional governance by involving the participation of the wider community allows the creation of democratic regional government in the framework of good governance. Good governance refers to the process of managing government through the involvement of broad stakeholders in various fields, ranging from economic, social, political, natural resource utilization, finance, and human for the benefit of all parties, namely the government, the private sector, and the community in accordance with the principles of principles of fairness, honesty, equality, efficiency, transparency and accountability.

Good governance has the principle of comprehensive governance and is open to use by any government, therefore it must be applied in the administration of government at the regional level. And when the concept of good governance is included in local governance, it is then referred to as good local governance. Research on good governance in the regions has often been carried out by experts, for example Dewirahmadanirwati (2018) who examines “Implementation of Regional Autonomy in Realizing Good Governance”, Yoserizal and Yudiatmaja (2007, 2010) on “Government Strategy in Developing e-Government as an Effort Improving the Quality of Public Services: In the Perspective of Regional Autonomy “, Yoserizal and Tovalini K., (2011) on” Implementation of Public Accountability Principles and Their Relation to Bureaucratic Reform “,

However, research on how the relationship between the application of the principles of good governance by Government Administrators (Governors and Heads of Regional People’s Representatives Council) in improving the quality of public policies does not exist. Due to the absence of research on the application of the principles of good governance by Government Administrators (Governor and Chair of the Regional People’s Representative Council) in improving the quality of public policy, it is the academic concern of the author who voices to carry out this research. Where in general Indonesian researchers and scholars (even the world) still focus their studies on the application of the concepts and principles of good governance and their relation to public services.

So far, a large number of policies have been decided by Regional Government Administrators, but have not been able to identify the substantive problems of society. Whether it is the problem of poverty, education, health (stunting) and so on, under these conditions it can be assumed that the implementation of policies by local government administrators is positioned as not part of the mechanism process, where each actor will automatically do whatever has to be done according to the policy-making scenario , but rather as an activity process which is often influenced by several factors that are significant enough to achieve policy goals and objectives as well as conflicts of interest among the actors involved, either as managers, field officers or target groups.

This is in line with Professor Utomo (2012) that “in implementation, administration is still considered an activity that has a reputation as sluggish, cumbersome, swollen, redtape, inefficient, routine, rigid, narrow, arrogance, complex procedures, formal measures. , and others that cause government activities to be ineffective, inefficient, unresponsive, and uneconomical

As with the principles of regional autonomy, it should be in line with the principles of good governance to create quality public policies in accordance with the needs of society. The principles of good governance according to the UNDP (United Nation Development Program) are: (1) participation, (2) legal certainty, (3) transparency, (4) responsibility, (5) agreement-oriented, (6) justice, (7) effectiveness and efficiency, (8) accountability, (9) strategic vision. These principles are inherent in governance in order to achieve what is expected so that good relations with the community can be felt.

Of course, policies are made through several stages, then up to policy implementation. Policy implementation is a practice from the government given for the purpose of meeting the demands of society. So that studies on the application (implementation) of the principles of good governance in governance, especially in shaping quality public policies need to be developed to find the right steps (policies) in regional planning.

Regional structuring has been regulated in Law Number 23 of 2014 concerning Regional Government Article 31 paragraph 2 which has six scopes, namely: (a.) Realizing the effectiveness of Regional Government administration; (b.) accelerate the improvement of community welfare; (c.) accelerating the improvement of the quality of public services; (d.) improve the quality of governance; (e.) increase national competitiveness and regional competitiveness; and (f.) maintaining the uniqueness of local customs, traditions and culture.

The quality of public policies through the application of good governance values ​​is largely determined by regional government administrators. Meanwhile, regional government administrators in accordance with Law Number 23 of 2014 Article 57 which reads “Provincial and district / city Regional Government Administrators consist of regional heads and DPRD assisted by Regional Apparatus”.

In relation to how the Regional Head (Governor and Regent / Mayor) and how the DPRD (Provincial, Regency / City) learn it (draft / draft amendments to the Perda on RPJPD and draft Perda on RPJMD to DPRD to be discussed with DPRD, as well as formulate and determine RKPD ) in carrying out the constitutional mandate, check and balance (mutual supervision and balance) depends on how the two regional government administrators apply the principles of good governance. Development as a process of change in society through policy making, where poverty must be eliminated, creativity and knowledge be increased, and health becomes prime for society.

Provincial and district / city regions have various development issues according to their household scope which must be handled appropriately by regional government administrators. Then broadly the author divides it into 2 (two), namely: (a.)Natural resources (SDA) include: land resources, marine and aquatic resources, forest and water resources, and mineral resources; (b.) Human resources (HR), including: education, manpower, religion, sports and youth development, women’s empowerment, health and social welfare.

However, until now, the condition of the region in accordance with the development issues above is still a serious note. So that to follow up on the various development issues above, regional government administrators must really apply the principles of good local governance in forming quality public policies so that they are appropriate to answer development issues, realize people’s welfare, and achieve state goals.

Continue Reading
Comments

Southeast Asia

Myanmar: Exploiting lessons learnt in the Middle East

Published

on

Demonstrating for the third week their determination to force the country’s military to return to its barracks, protesters in Myanmar appear to be learning lessons from a decade of protest in the Middle East and North Africa.

By the same token, Myanmar’s protesters, in stark contrast to public silence about the military’s brutal repression of the Rohingya minority in recent years, seem to want to forge a national identity that supersedes past emphasis on ethnicity and/or religion.

In doing so, they, like their counterparts in Lebanon and Iraq, reject sectarian policies that allowed elites to divide and rule and distract attention from economic and social grievances held by all segments of the population.

As they resist the military’s February 1 coup that nullified a democratic election won in November in a landslide by Aung San Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy (NLD) because of alleged electoral fraud, protesters confront many of the same obstacles that demonstrators in  Thailand, Turkey, Sudan, and Algeria face.

The ability to address desperately needed reforms with a buy-in from the military will shape a return to democracy and the sustainability of the transition. Taking military concerns into account reforms will have to include civilian control of the military, defining the military’s mission in national defence rather than ideological terms, and regulating the armed forces’ vast economic interests.

The Middle East and North Africa provide cautionary tales like Egypt that eight years after a coup has become a brutal dictatorship and Libya, Syria and Yemen that are wracked by war, as well as potential models, that would serve Myanmar’s democratization well.

Tunisia, the one Arab country to have pushed political transition relatively successful, was able to do so because Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, the Tunisian autocrat who was overthrown in 2011, had ensured that the military had no vested interest in the country’s political system.

Mr. Ben Ali decimated the military leadership, severely cut the budget of the armed forces early on in his 24-year rule and sidelined the military, relying instead on security forces and law enforcement. As a result, the military effectively stood aside when protesters staged mass anti-government demonstrations.

The positioning of Tunisia’s armed forces may not offer Myanmar immediate options, but it highlights the need for a military that understands itself as a national institution rather than a party with vested political and economic interests.

Of more immediate importance to Myanmar is the fact that Mr. Ben Ali as well as the leaders of Egypt, Libya and Yemen were toppled by an informal alliance between civil society and either factions of the military or the armed forces as a whole. They shared a short-term interest in removing the incumbent from power.

The same is true for Southeast Asia’s people power revolts in the Philippines and Indonesia in the 1980s and 1990s. In Myanmar, it was the military that opted for a degree of political liberalization following decades of intermittent mass protest.

It took Tunisian civil society’s engagement with the security forces as well as other segments of society and the existing power structure to nurture the democratization process. By contrast, the process was derailed in much of the Middle East by a post-revolt breakdown of the alliance, often aggravated and/or manipulated by external forces.

The Tunisian approach enabled all parties to manage the inevitable divergence of interests once Mr. Ben Ali had been toppled, juxtaposing civil society’s quest for wholesale political and economic reform with the security forces’ insistence on the preservation of their economic and political interests and rescue of as much of the ancien regime as possible.

In Tunisia, like in other post-revolt countries, the divergence kicked in the moment the incumbent was removed. The Middle East and Southeast Asia’s experience demonstrates that the pitfalls are embedded in the compromises made to establish a transitionary government.

Inevitably, the military and/or security forces either constitute the transition government or are a powerful part of it. Their track record is one of taking liberties in protecting their interests.

Like in Myanmar this month, the military crosses red lines when the transition endangers those prerogatives. Learning how to counter the pitfalls of perilous but inevitable cooperation with at least segments of the military and/or security forces is a work in progress.

Turkey provides a different set of lessons. President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s turn towards repression and authoritarianism in the wake of a failed military coup in 2016 suggests that civilian control does not offer a magic wand even if the takeover was foiled by protesters who set aside their social, ideological, and political differences.

If this is a cautionary tale, Turkey also offers solutions to at least one of the issues: the military’s economic interests. Turkey’s military, even before the imposition of civilian control, put its economic house in order by creating a conglomerate, one of the country’s largest, that is owned by the military pension fund and subject to regulation, civic and commercial law, and markets like any other privately held institution.

As civil obedience in Myanmar persists, protesters have certain advantages.

Rather than being on their own, the protesters benefit from being at the forefront of a wave of defiance and dissent that for the past decade and no doubt the next is fueled by a breakdown in confidence in political systems and leadership.

With the pandemic, the widespread mismanagement of public health responses, the global economic downturn and dislocation, and technological change, the coming decade promises to be perhaps even more turbulent.

In addition, Myanmar protesters’ may be beneficiaries of the electoral defeat of US President Donald Trump and the rise of Joe Biden, who has pledged to make human rights a central plank of his foreign policy.

Granted, US adherence in its foreign policy to its human rights values has at the best of times been checkered.

Nonetheless, Mr. Biden’s approach, even if imperfectly applied, erases the permissive environment that autocrats enjoyed during the Trump years.

There is, moreover, a reason to believe that Mr. Biden will be truer to his pledge because it is key to US efforts to repair the credibility and reputational damage suffered by the United States because of Mr. Trump’s America First policy; disdain for multilateralism, international institutions, and international law; empathy with autocrats; and disregard for human rights.

Playing into Mr. Biden’s emphasis on human rights is the fact that the protests, like in Lebanon and Iraq, appear to have broken down ethnic and religious fault lines.

Yangon’s usually hidden Rohingya community has openly joined the protests four years after detained democratically elected Myanmar leader Aung San Suu Kyi stood by and later defended the military’s ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya, more than 700,00 of which fled to Bangladesh.

Burmese who in recent years used Twitter to attack and threaten Rohingya activists living in exile have apologized since the February coup, recognizing that military rule poses a threat to all.

Political transition, like reconciliation, is a long-drawn-out process that can take up to half a century to play out. It is a process of two steps forward and steps backwards as Myanmar is discovering now. 

The Myanmar military understands that tacit Russian and Chinese support may not be as much of a lifesaver as it was in the past. That may explain the military’s reluctance to crush the protests even if the likelihood of an imminent crackdown is high.

If the experience of Egypt is anything to go by, the military can brutally suppress and keep a lid on unrest for a period of time. It may preserve the military’s interests for a while, but it cannot provide sustainable economic solutions or ensure stability.

In contrast to Egypt, protesters in Myanmar have the advantage that they are demanding recognition of a current election outcome that could put a new government in a position to redefine the role of the military and regulate its economic interests.

Based on the experience of Egypt, one core bone that the government would likely have to throw the military is immunity against prosecution for past crimes. That may be a bitter pill to swallow and violate principles of truth and accountability as an important pillar of transition.

As Egypt demonstrates, it offers no guarantee of keeping the military in its barracks. But it may be the carrot that helps entice the military to make the concessions needed for a democratic transition.

For now, Myanmar cries out for non-partisan independents capable of helping the military and the protesters to back away from a zero-sum game that seems destined to result in bloodshed.

That is likely to prove a gargantuan task as Indonesian Foreign Minister Retno Marsudi spearheads efforts by the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) to mediate a way back from the brink.

In the words of former International Crisis Group Myanmar analyst Morten B. Pedersen “when a military obsessed with order and stability…confronts an essentially leaderless popular movement driven by youthful anger and shattered hopes, compromise is perhaps the hardest thing of all.”

Continue Reading

Southeast Asia

How International Law Sight Towards the Coup D’etat Process in Myanmar

Published

on

The Union of Myanmar is a sovereign state, where the Capital City is located in Yangon before moved to the Naypyidaw on November 7th, 2005 by the action of Junta’s Military Governance. As known, in the historical background, Myanmar is a country that has been through the grip of a military dictatorship for over six-decade.

Previously, in the brief story of Myanmar, in the 19th century, (in the Konbaung Dynasty),Burma took control of an area that includes a modern territory of Myanmar, also briefly controlled Manipur and Assam. In that era, Britain dominated Myanmar after three of the Anglo-Burma War and thus this country was colonialized by the British. Myanmar got independence in 1948 to be a democratic state but was being coup d’etat by the military in 1962, which General Ne Win wrested the governmental mandate from Prime Minister U Nu, who was in power since 1948. At that phase, this country got passeda tough regime, which gave an unsavory impact, particularly in economic aspect and various inhuman acts, such as against ethnic, where United Nations and many International Organization always reported a significant case about human rights there. In 2011, Junta’s Military was dissolved after the elections in 2010, but this country is still can not refuse all the criticism in the previous measures of the old government to the towards minority ethnic.

In the general elections 2015, Aung San Suu Kyi Party is the winner of the majority parliament, where this is can be the historical point to Myanmar to get a democratization opportunity. Based on the general election result in November 2020, Aung San Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy Party (NLD) won 396 of the 476 parliamentary seats, while the military-backed opposition, Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP), only got 33 seats. However, Myanmar’s Military is still the major force in politic, since The 2008 Constitution (which the controversial rules) is granted the military rights to control the government and that is constitution also reward the Tatmadaw Military to get 25% parliamentary seats in the important aspect in the national security sector, which includes the ministries of interior, border, and security affairs. Specifically, even the NLD dominated parliamentary seats, the military stronghold still controls the government. Hence, the military insists refused the result of the election, and the Press Secretary of the USDP, Doctor Nandar Hla Myint believes there is a fraud of the mass elections, and if this case is not handled in advance, this could make damage or political chaos. The General of Military, Min Aung Hlaing also stipulated, the evaluation of elections is indeed a non-fair and dishonest practice. Thus, before the trial was open by the parliament, the coup d’etat happened by the military. The NLD party led by Aung San Suu Kyi began to gain a political arena until finally today Myanmar falls into the hands of the generals again.

This is the second time the military success to dethrone through democratic governance, previously the coup d’etat itself happened many time, such in 1988 when General Ne Win pension from the military and replaced by Sein Lwin who is well known as a person that brutally to the Pro-Democratic, thus he has been beaten back by the mass action, and Doctor Maung Maung replaced him at that time. But not long after that, there is a coup d’etat internal by the military which takes over by General Jaw Maung who has also established a new party, named State Law and Order Restoration Committee (SLORC).

Various international sanctions have been imposed on Myanmar. In 1996, the European Union decided to ban arms sales to Myanmar. The United States has also imposed sanctions since 1988, prohibiting new investment by its citizens in Myanmar in 1997, then closing the gap for imports of products from Myanmar in 2003.

Regarding the actions by Myanmar’s Military, several International Community has constituted Myanmar as a breach of international values and some country has banned a few aspects to Myanmar as mention above, however, how the International Law views it?

International Law Perspective

Based on the UN Charter views, under Article 1 (1) affirmed, should take effective measures to prevent and thrown a threat of peace where have a correlate with Resolutions of the UN Security Council which called upon States not to recognize a certain authority or even decided that the Member States should refrain from recognizing a certain authority would hardly have been necessary if recognition had no legal meaning. It concludes, the prohibition to recognize new governance from the coup d’etat result, because in case of the legal commitment to the democratic government of a State, the other States only may continue to recognize the exiled democratically elected government a revival as a measure for the protection and consolidation of democratic government. Other than that, as examine in Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States is has to fulfill 4 qualifications, a permanent population; a defined territory; government; the capacity to enter into relations with the other states. In this convention sight, especially in Government point, it complies with the sovereign government that holds the highest power and is formed to carry out the running of the government of a country. As known, Myanmar is currently being a democratic state as the result in the general elections 2020 where Aung San Suu Kyi has won the vote, thus the state should honor and deem in this democratic regime. However, the military is trying to take over the governance back, this form of breaches the democratic rules, wherein this system did not recognize dualism of leadership, as did by Myanmar’s military. Even Myanmar did not sign and ratified this convention, it still ought to be legally binding, since this is recognized by civilized nations as one of the basic international agreements in international law.

Accordance to the coup of Myanmar’s military is not in line with ASEAN’s Charter which contains many democracy references, wherein in the preamble conduct, “Adhering to the principles of democracy, the rule of law and good governance.” Especially Article 1 lists “strengthening democracy, enhancing good governance and the rule of law as among ASEAN’s main purposes.” And also in Article 2 on the organization’s “principles” includes “adherence to the rule of law, good governance, the principles of democracy and constitutional government.” Therefore, Myanmar as a member of this charter since 1997, ought to uphold the purpose of this agreement.

Subsequently, the Coup D’etat action by Myanmar’s military is a tantamount form of treason towards a democratic system, which the legitimate government is defeated by the military without a concrete reason, lack of evidence, and unclear accusations, that is just a prejudice of fraud in the elections by Myanmar’s military to the Aung San Suu Kyi party, and most United Nations officials and diplomats voiced alarm at the February 1, 2021 coup and the brutal response to some of the massive protests unsteady Myanmar because fails to comply with the basic rule of law principles.

Myanmar’s Military action is also indeed not in compliance with customary international law that honor by many countries, where refuse to recognize any government set up under these circumstances or any Government elected as a result of these illegal actions. For instance, in some state practices, firstly, there is a Canada action that declares all the Organizations of the American State (OAS) won’t recognize any governance that is made by the coup d’etat, which is Norway to the Haiti Government. Secondly, British action that did not recognize the governance in Cambodia since the genocidal Pol Pot Government of Cambodia and the Rawlings Government in Ghana by the public and the media, which considered formal recognition as tantamount to moral approval. Thirdly, the Belgian Government refused to recognize Mao Tse-tung instead of Tshiang Kai-shek as the Government of the Chinese State, and so on. Since based on both principle and State practice of recognition of the government in International Law.

Protest also provoke by the International Community, Britain, and the European Union that refuse those action by did not recognize the new governance, because the way the military did is indeed unprocedural, as affirmed in Tobar and Wilson doctrines of formally denying recognition to governments coming to power by unconstitutional means and combining them with the element of continued recognition of the democratically elected governments forced into exile by coup d’état or revolution. Strengthen in Stimson Doctrine, examine about the condemn all recognition of new situations by third States is an important mechanism in international relations, and this doctrine was the start of a process of customary international law formation for a rule prohibiting recognition of situations resulting from unlawful acts that in line with the international legal order, as a coup of Myanmar’s Military did to the Aung San Suu Kyi governance.

ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) role as an international organization has presented in the ASEAN election of Myanmar’s general election in 2020 as a form of election observation that is chasing to get an additional handling a political crisis without a coercive way by ASEAN, which should be more legitimacy to the election process, and this might dilute the Tatmadaw prejudice to justify the coup. Moreover, ASEAN responded to this current issues that represent by Brunei as an ASEAN’s rotating chairmanship stipulated, “dialogue, reconciliation and the return to normalcy” in Myanmar, that statement is indeed a democratic principle in the ASEAN Charter since it implied with a non-coercive form of intervention to the internal affairs that honor by each party. Consider sanctions of a breach of this charter is nonexistent, thus it’s only come with the increased statements of concern regarding Myanmar’s internal affairs from each member in the recent years to condemn the coercive instrument. Even if, there is no significant settlement to Myanmar’s coup, this organization still tried to stands to learn important lessons from its actions for developing regional crisis management and prevention mechanisms to fulfill ASEAN’s aspirations of strengthening democracy.

For the foregoing reason, Myanmar’s Military action is indeed opposed by many sources in International Law, contemplate the democracy is the government of the people and for the people (Hans Kelsen), hence in the democratic system is really honor the freedom of speech and the recognition of fair government, and due to Myanmar’s Military measures to NDL Party that led by Aung San Suu Kyi it ought void because no relevant all on times.

Continue Reading

Southeast Asia

The Mosaic of Defiance: Is Resumption of Democracy Enough?

Published

on

photo: Wikipedia

Horns blaring, roads crowded and pots clattering in twilight; this is the new reality of Myanmar. A reality that no one envisaged but developed after years, decades even, of pent-up frustration, anger and subjugation. The recent military coup launched by General Min Aung Hlaing has sketched a passage for the citizenry to break away from the shackled history of the country, to stand beside the leader they admired for decades. Yet, as streets are flooding in protest, resignations being flaunted to register defiance and graffiti colouring the walls in pure rendition of support to the dethroned government, the question stems: Is the government even a true manifestation of democracy? And is reconciliation of the elected government actually what the country needs?Ever so desperately!

After ruling the state for almost six decades, the military, notoriously known as ‘Tatmadaw’ has clinched its talons again after a brief tryst with what apparently was hailed as ‘Democracy’. Wading through the years of tyranny, the public aficionado rose up in the face of Aung San Suu Kyi. Her legacy trailed from her martyred father, Aung San, who etched his name in history through his remarkable struggle towards the independence of Myanmar. Her tireless effort spieled her devotion to the cause of ordinary people, the people tormented at the hands of the ruthless military. Her house arrest post-election debacle in 1990 raved the supporters and her party: National League of Democracy (NLD), swiftly transcended from being an underdog to the archival of Junta for decades to follow.

Her acquittal followed by her landslide victory of the elections marked rejoice as both the military receded and the people-favourite Suu Kyi rose up the ranks to harness the nascent democracy of Myanmar. Yet, backstab doesn’t nearly describe the treatment reciprocated by the venerated figure in power now. The pleas and cries of the oppressed remained unheeded as the hapless witnessed the desecration of humanity whilst Suu Kyi greeted the military leaders with harmony. While NLD revelled in power and control, the tyranny of the military never receded,but only intensified. The raping spree, the economic disparity, the faltering education, the barbed freedom of speech and expression. The unfathomable reality in what was envisioned to be a paradise, a liberation from the draconian rule only proved to be much worse.

Another subsequent landslide victory to NLD was often confused with the popularity and admiration. Suu Kyi lost the reverence years ago when she monopolised the sentiments of the victims. The superficial democracy functioned under the Military chartered constitution. The democratic institutions functioned but with a quarter-quota to the military totalitarians. The world looked at the pretence of a prospering and progressing Myanmar yet it rotted from within. The world questioned the military brutality against Rohingya and Suu Kyi blatantly denied each crime committed; crimes riddled with pain of rape and pillage spanning decades and well into her tenure. More than a million innocent Muslims displaced from their own country as Suu Kyi acquiesced the massacre as if she never truly believed in their innocence. As if she always stood parallel to the totalitarian narrative regarding Rohingya;always visioned them as ‘Terrorists’ and ‘Invaders of the Nation”.

Victory bestowed on NLD yet again however, the minorities were ridiculed and barred from voting. The democracy that never really evaded the drapes of the fascist regime since 2011, started to unknot from the military’s interest. Allegations of mass rigging were chanted yet the disenfranchisement of the minorities like Rohingya was never the part of the picture. The sudden coup took the world by surprise as Suu Kyi, along with the top tier of NLD, descended back to the era of house arrest under falsified charges. The patriots took charge of the streets and the faltering effort to defy the military is in effect ever since.

The schematic arrangement of the military, however, was never questioned by the proponents of peace and tranquillity today. When the minorities suffocated under the guise of democracy, no protests ensued in support. When their celebrated leader joined hands with the tyrants and trampled all over the years and years of struggle and sacrifice of the oppressed, no defiance surfaced. Instead, term after term, Suu Kyi grabbed a majority mandate while the cruelty continued at the same rampant pace either in the name of ‘Ethnic Cleansing’ or ‘National Interest’. Now, the country is witnessing the first peace protest campaign against the military, identical to the like of Thailand and Hong Kong: demanding democracy. No sane mind reflects and questions the tents of democracy itself. The world pushed sanctions in hopes of the revival of the displaced government yet no one questions the authenticity of the rule. The military promises democracy and protestors naively feel vindicated. All that has unfolded and even what is about to transpire is perplexing. What is coherent is the fact that the country that lacks the rudimentary concept of democracy might be able to win back the government but it would never witness the light of true freedom.

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Trending