Burma/Myanmar: What Everyone Needs to Know (11 page)

Since independence, the military has had an honored position in Burmese society. It had sided with the Allies in March 1945, and Aung San had negotiated independence with the British labor government. The military had fought off the Red Flag communist rebellion that started even before independence, the White Flag communist (BCP) rebellion that started shortly after that date, various PVO paramilitary groups that sometimes became bandits, and the most severe, the Karen rebellion, which advanced to within what are now Rangoon suburbs. At its lowest point, the government commanded perhaps 2,000 troops. As we have noted, the military also had some experience in administering territories threatened by the Kuomintang.

Serving in the military was a desirable career, attracting the sons (and a few daughters) of many in the elite. The Burma army during the civilian period grew to about 110,000 men and since 1949 was commanded by General Ne Win, who was also minister of defense and occasionally deputy prime minister.

Given the personalization of power in Burma/Myanmar, various AFPFL leaders were jockeying for position. As a consequence, there was the possibility that paramilitary forces and the police might be used and civil war might develop. Elections
scheduled for late 1958 could have led to bloodshed or communist control.

The military was not about to let this happen. On September 24, 1958, key military leaders went to U Nu, who was prime minister, and said a coup was necessary to avoid civil war and to preserve the Union. Faced with an illegal coup, U Nu opted instead to invite the military to govern constitutionally for six months through passage of appropriate legislation. They stayed eighteen months, voluntarily withdrew, and allowed a free election to take place that brought U Nu back into power, although the military had favored his opposition. This act has sometimes been called a constitutional coup or a coup by consent; it was the first of three quite diverse coups in this country (the others were in 1962 and 1988).

The military articulated three objects of their transitory government: restore law and order, eliminate “economic insurgents,” and prepare the country for civilian elections. For eighteen months the military unilaterally ran the state, making all major decisions through officers placed in the various ministries and organizations; the mayor of Rangoon was one such pivotal figure. Quick decisions were reached, and the military performed very well during this short period. They were not corrupt and forced lower prices in the bazaars (believing that the merchants, who were often foreign, were gouging the people). They instituted law and order, cleaned the cities, moved squatters to the outskirts of Rangoon (as did the SLORC in 1988 and 1989), and negotiated some border agreements. The military passed a universal conscription law for all males and females on an Israeli model, but it was never implemented because volunteers exceeded demand. They eliminated the legal rights of the Shan sawbwas as well and outlawed opium production.

The military expanded the Defense Services Institute, a type of military post exchange for the army that began in the early 1950s and became the first Burmese conglomerate. It had some fourteen different corporations that included an international
shipping line, a bank, a printing press, department stores, trading companies, and a restaurant. They were considered eminently successful businesses, but this was problematic because it was run by the military and cost accounting of the use of military personnel and facilities were not included.

This period, however, gave the military confidence that it could manage the Burmese economy and was probably instrumental in its belief, coupled with its administration of parts of the Shan State, that it could manage the whole country. At the close of the temporary military rule started by the legalized coup, the military published a volume on its accomplishments entitled
Is Trust Vindicated
? This compared their work to Hercules cleaning out the Augean Stables.

The militaries and their regimes around the world, as some of the social science literature of that time argued, were the hope of development. Even if they were autocratic (and because they were anticommunist), they were regarded as rational, goal-oriented, uncorrupted, and nationalistic, and seemed to perform better than civilian governments. The Burmese military in the period of the Caretaker Government was in a sense a model for other countries, and it was often cited as such. In retrospect, however, it might be argued that this praise for the military worldwide was a convenient finding from an anticommunist world perspective.

The military’s success was lauded by both Burmese and foreign observers, for not since the British period had the state been run so well (if undemocratically). But the sad aftermath of the second military coup in March 1962 obliterated in foreign and domestic eyes the early progress that the military had brought to the Union of Burma.

The Union of Burma was a fragile artifact, a product of the Panglong Agreement of February 12, 1947, that was led by Aung San, who, by the force of his personality, provided the
trust that wove the Union together. The patchwork was a Union composed of the (essentially) Burman areas and a Shan, Kachin, Kayah, and later Karen State. In addition, there was a Chin Special Division (province). Under the 1947 constitution, the Shan and Kayah States could opt to leave the Union after ten years and a plebiscite. The Kayah State was an anomaly; it had been recognized as independent by both the British and the Mandalay courts in 1875, but on independence this was ignored. Only later under the military were the Mon and Arakan States constituted, although U Nu had earlier promised their formation.

The minorities were represented in a separate bicameral legislature, and each has its own government but very limited resources. To placate the minorities, the president of the Union ethnically rotated. The first was a Shan, the second a Burman, the third a Karen (who had been a Christian but was said to have espoused Buddhism). Had not the coup of 1962 intervened, the fourth would have been a Kachin. It was assumed that anyone in that position would be a Buddhist. Power, however, resided with the prime minister, who for most of the civilian period was U Nu, a devout Buddhist who also knew how to use his faith for political purposes. During the civilian period, there were significant Christian populations among the Karen (perhaps a third), the Kachin (today over 95 percent), and the Chin (today some 80–90 percent). Conversions to Christianity were not uncommon among animist peoples, but they were rare among Buddhists. Minorities staffed the various ministries and the bureaucracy, and there seemed to be little discrimination as long as one played by Burman rules—that is, identified with the majority of the population. Ability was more important than ethnicity.

To ensure state solidarity, official education was in Burmese, and local-language textbooks and materials were not officially allowed (except for some Chinese publications). Local languages were taught in after-school hours and private institutions, such as churches, but the official curriculum was mandated by the
Burman center. On Union Day, the anniversary of the Panglong Agreement, various minorities were brought together in a festival of costumes, song, and dance, but this was primarily symbolic. Although the 1947 constitution (and subsequent ones) called for the protection of local cultures, this was not backed by effective central government support.

The constant complaint among the minority governments was that the central government did not allocate sufficient resources to them. Aung San once said that if the Burman area got one kyat, the minorities would get one kyat. This was variously interpreted as resources would equally be shared between the Burmans and all the minorities, or that the Burmans would get one share while each of the minority areas would also get one share. In either case, this did not happen. They were all administratively and fiscally under central (Burman) control. They often claimed that even if their populations were smaller, their land area was larger and most of the natural resources of the state were in minority areas, and they did not receive sufficient funding. Some of the minorities wanted to negotiate directly with foreign aid agencies for support, but this was denied by the center, perhaps fearing foreign connivance in secession efforts. In fact, the minority issue (ostensibly) prompted the military coup of 1962. As one scholar argued, before 1948, Burma had unity but not independence. After 1948, however, it has independence but not unity.

The elections of February 6, 1960, following the Caretaker Government, were regarded as free and fair. U Nu, leading his faction of the AFPFL, renamed the Union Party, won against his Stable AFPFL opponents, although the military would have preferred to see the latter victorious. U Nu won in large part because he received the majority of the Buddhist vote. He promised to make Buddhism the state religion. He was known as extremely devout, almost monk-like, even picking saffron
(the color of monks’ robes) as his party color. His picture was on the ballot box. Some Burmese thought it mesmerized voters into supporting him.

The elections brought U Nu back, but the administration was weak and ineffectual. The economy suffered, rebellions increased, and the military, the most effective organization in the state, became concerned.

In the two cases in which the military supervised voting (1960 and 1990), the administration ensured the relative honesty of the vote counts. In 1960, campaigning was unrestricted, but in 1990 it was very controlled. Under the planned elections of 2010, which will be held under a military regime, questions regarding the freedom of both campaigning and vote counting are likely to be raised by both the Burmese and international communities. Although various international organizations will ask to monitor the voting and counting (no foreign observers were allowed in the voting on referendum on the constitution in 2008), the government has indicated that this will not be tolerated, as such observers might prompt political problems.

The military had become restive. They had tasted power under the Caretaker Government and believed they could manage the country. They were appalled by the gross incompetence of the U Nu administration after 1960, when the country’s problems, according to the administration, could be symbolically assuaged by the building of 60,000 sand pagodas. They had strongly objected to U Nu’s campaign promise of making Buddhism the state religion, as they knew it would offend the Kachin and Karen. In 1961, Buddhism became the state religion, but a separate bill was enacted guaranteeing freedom of religion. U Nu advocated nat (spirit) worship (the thirty-seven principal nats are enshrined in a Pagan-period pagoda). There had even been some talk among the military of a coup before
the 1962 military move; one key officer who had quietly advocated it was shipped out as an ambassador.

The ostensible reason for the coup was, however, the preservation of the Union. Various minorities had gathered in Rangoon for a discussion of their options under the 1947 constitution to leave the Union after ten years. The military claimed that the Union must be preserved, and the coup was a defense against the break-up of the state. They believed that U Nu would agree to this move, which would produce “chaos.” The prospect of chaos has been and still is both a fear of and an excuse for military action. Others argued that the government had no intention of allowing the Union to dissolve but might have been prepared to offer somewhat more autonomy to the constituent states, and that the minority issue was not the real cause but simply the excuse. The military, some claimed, simply wanted national power.

In any case, on March 2, 1962, the military moved to take over the government, arresting all those who might question their move (the executive officials, legislature, judiciary, etc.); they did so with the loss of only one life, that of the son of the former Shan president of the Union. It was a coup that was designed to perpetuate military control, eventually through a civilianized administration.

There is no question that the civilian government (1948–1958, 1960–1962) provided more freedoms for the average citizen than any government since that time. Although it used autocratic legislation (some from the colonial period) to control the state and there were political prisoners, there was a significant degree of press freedom. The judiciary was well trained and reasonably independent, occasionally striking down executive detention orders. Although there were arbitrary arrests, they were never as extensive as under military rule. The market was more open than it has been since that time. The government,
in spite of limited capacity, was more concerned about popular welfare than any subsequent administration.

These positive factors must be weighed against the problems that the state faced. Insecurity was rife, not only through rebellions but through a deterioration in law and order throughout the country. Local leaders had autocratic powers. Factionalism was apparent and dangerously destructive of state authority, control, and the delivery of goods and services. Corruption was evident and virtually uncontrolled. Personalized power and factionalism were rampant. Institutions were generally weak. The minorities were struggling to administer their areas with inadequate resources under strictures on their cultures and education. Coherent and responsible leadership was lacking, and political jockeying affected the distribution of services from rural credit to imports and exports.

On balance, it would be inappropriate to use the Burmese civilian period as a model for any future government. A new type of relationship is required for the minorities. An independent judiciary is essential for any effective state. Legal and social restraints on corruption are required, as is greater transparency in decision making. A free press is critical to effective oversight of any administration. Strengthening of participatory institutions is necessary; personalism needs control. Thus, a return to the civilian period as a model is not warranted, although lessons from it could provide useful material for any new Burmese administration.