Political prisoners still languishing in Burma | New Mandala

Political prisoners still languishing in Burma | New Mandala

 

BO KYI, GUEST CONTRIBUTOR, 

9 FEBRUARY 2015

Burma is faltering on its path towards democracy. It is crucial that the international community renew pressure on the Government of Burma to ensure they remain committed to a democratic future. It is for this reason that the Assistance Association for Political Prisoners (AAPP), and the Former Political Prisoners Society (FPPS), are calling on supporters from across the world to take photographs of their participation in our 2015 Palm Campaign. The campaign calls for an end to the use of oppressive laws to harass, arrest and imprison political activists; the unconditional release of current political prisoners; and real lasting judicial and legislative reform in Burma.

The 2015 Palm Campaign is necessary to show the Government of Burma and the international community that the world has not forgotten about political prisoners still languishing in Burma’s prisons. However the campaign symbolizes more than the pressing need for their freedom. The 2015 Campaign intends to remind the world that the democratic transition in Burma is stalling, with no real lasting reforms and no sign of substantive policy change in the country.

The number of political prisoners has increased six-fold since the end of 2013; there are now 180 political prisoners in jail. The steady rise in the number of political prisoners in the last year makes it quite clear that the Government of Burma is increasingly cracking down on fundamental freedoms in the run up to Burma’s 2015 election. Not only has progress in Burma stalled, but the government is also guilty of backsliding on reforms – the alarming political prisoner situation is demonstrative of this.

By taking photographs of themselves standing in solidarity with Burma’s political prisoners, supporters from across the globe can show the Government of Burma that the international community stands in solidarity with political prisoners, and demands lasting reform in Burma.

13 March 2015 informally signifies Burma’s Human Rights Day, which commemorates Phone Maw — the student shot dead at Rangoon Institute of Technology by government security troops during protests on this day in 1988 — a pivotal moment in the ’88 pro-democracy uprisings. The campaign will culminate on Burma’s Human Rights Day by showcasing photographs of the support and solidarity from across the world, at an exhibition in Rangoon. This event will display the international community’s widespread call that the Government of Burma must demonstrate the political will to meet the demands of this campaign.

To find out more about the campaign and how to take your photograph please visit:http://aappb.org/2015-political-prisoners-campaign/

Bo Kyi is a former political prisoner and co-founder and Joint Secretary of the Assistance Association for Political Prisoners Burma. Follow the 2015 campaign on Twitter at: @aapp_burma and Instagram at: 2015_Palm_Campaign

Democratic values and human rights in ASEAN | New Mandala

Democratic values and human rights in ASEAN | New Mandala

JAMES GOMEZ AND ROBIN RAMCHARAN, GUEST CONTRIBUTORS, 

9 FEBRUARY 2015

Southeast Asia is marked by a fragmented and shifting state of democratic development. Much of this fragmentation can be explained by conflict over political values concerning the choice of governance systems, degree of participation and level of accountability.

In ASEAN, it is this lack of shared “democratic” values that has impacted the protection capacity of the ASEAN Inter-Governmental Commission of Human Rights (AICHR). This is the principal finding of a special issue of the Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs titled “Democracy and Human Rights in Southeast Asia”.

Published by the German Institute of Global and Area Studies’ Institute of Asian Studies, this new volume brings together six researchers who examine how ASEAN’s political framework shaped the establishment of the region’s human rights mechanism.

Since the 2007 Charter, ASEAN has been pursing democratic forms of governance, rule of law and the attendant fundamental human rights through “community-building” in many areas. However a “community” presupposes the development of common values among its member-states and among its citizens.

But the papers in the volume reveal that ASEAN’s people-centered approach to regional integration is problematic due to the absence in practice of a community firmly anchored to democratic principles. In fact, member states had divergent reasons for adopting the Charter and the AICHR.

For instance, weaker and less secure states, with the authoritarian and military regimes, are not comfortable with the push towards a human rights regime that is aligned to international standards.

As a result, the adoption of democratic terminology in its documents and the establishment of a human right mechanism has not allowed ASEAN to move away from its non-interference position to a more interventionist stance among the member states.

Closer investigation shows that unless the quality of democracy in all ten countries improve through the adoption of shared democratic values, the human rights regime is unlikely to improve substantially. On the academic front existing perspectives from realist, constructivist and acculturalist perspectives preclude a single theoretical explanation.

The region is no exception to the global march of democracy that has taken place in recent decades but in the case of the protection capacity of ASEAN’s human rights regime, distinctions between democracy in form and substance must be noted.

The papers in the collection are aimed at policy makers, practitioners and students of politics, democracy and human rights in Asia and elsewhere. It is intended to stimulate further debate and discussion on ASEAN’s evolving human rights regime.

James Gomez and Robin Ramcharan co-edited the latest issue of the Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs entitled “Democracy and Human Rights in Southeast Asia”. All papers in the collection are available for download athttp://www.giga-hamburg.de/en/news/asean-democracy

Soldiers with democratic hearts? | New Mandala

Soldiers with democratic hearts? | New Mandala

 

NICHOLAS FARRELLY, 

30 JANUARY 2015

From a distance, it feels like post-coup politics in Thailand is heating back up. Efforts to neuter former Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra’s chances of a political comeback are hitting the mark. Her enemies don’t want a charismatic Shinawatra anywhere near the top jobs.

At the same time, the United States is being called out by Thailand’s generals for the apparently harsh tone of its recent observations about the state of Thai democracy. To my ears, the Americans were just calling a spade a spade.

But that’s not how General Prayuth heard it. He told the media:

It saddens me that the United States does not understand the reason why I had to intervene and does not understand the way we work, even though we have been close allies for years…

In another recent reflection, General Prayuth offered:

I am a soldier with a democratic heart. I seized power because I wanted democracy to live on…

What should we make of these statements? Do we doubt the general’s sincerity?

Just this week, clampdowns on important democratic forums, like this one, are rolling along. There are also new additions to the long list of concerns about limitations on Internet discussions.

For 2014, Freedom House gave Thailand an abruptly downgraded score; the biggest drop anywhere. Given all of the military’s work to strangle the opposition and stamp out dissent, it would be hard to quibble with the Freedom House assessment.

The problem for Thailand’s military rulers (and their sympathisers) is that they don’t much like being called a dictatorship. They get irritated at the assertion that their 22 May 2014 coup or the earlier effort on 19 September 2006 were undemocratic initiatives. They hold to the notion that some coups are democratic, worthy, even righteous.

In our world of infinite spin and media massage, General Prayuth and his key allies, including General Prawit Wongsuwon, must be struggling to maintain a straight face.

It doesn’t help when General Prawit is forced to deny rumours of negotiations with deposed former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra. Whatever he says, the fact of political life in Thailand, and elsewhere, is that there is always the prospect of a deal.

To understand why that matters in Thailand the idea of the “un-state” introduced a few years by Craig Reynolds deserves further attention. It suggests that the entire Thai political system is shaped by pushes-and-pulls. For now, General Prayuth and General Prawit need to push much harder if they want to convince skeptics of their democratic zeal.

Nicholas Farrelly is the co-founder of New Mandala. In 2013 he published an article on Thailand’s “elite coup culture“.

Aung San Suu Kyi in 2015 | New Mandala

Aung San Suu Kyi in 2015 | New Mandala

NICHOLAS FARRELLY, 

 3 FEBRUARY 2015

2015 will be a defining year for Aung San Suu Kyi. There is no doubt that the months to come, as the election campaign heats up, will test her mettle.

At the start of the year I wrote a short essay on this theme for Mizzima. That essay concludes by noting:

Daw Aung San Suu Kyi is often criticised for her inability to adjust to new challenges. To her credit, since she was released from house arrest in late 2010 she has made great strides as a political player. Her speeches are on topic and her campaign tactics are better than ever.

But she needs the people of Myanmar to put their faith in her. That is also why she has been so reluctant to court controversy. Human rights activists can judge her harshly for her inability to advocate on behalf of the Rohingya or Kachin.

Yet, sadly, there are no votes to be won in taking a bold stand on these issues, and millions may be lost. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi – after all her sacrifices and those of her party – cannot afford to let that happen.

Such hard-headed electoral maths can’t be ignored.

That essay doesn’t deal with one of the other ways that Aung San Suu Kyi has adroitly positioned herself, and her party, for the rough-and-tumble of 2015. Every sitting day, as she strides into the Hluttaw chambers in Naypyitaw, she further legitimises a system about which she still apparently has misgivings.

Whatever her sense of the reform trajectory, it’s clear that her personal role in Naypyitaw is pivotal. In 2012, on the eve of the April by-election, I wrote about this issue: Aung San Suu Kyi’s relationship to the wider reform process. One of myassessments back then was that:

It is much more dangerous for President Thein Sein if Aung San Suu Kyi fails to win her seat. Such an outcome would lead to inevitable cries of vote-rigging and could spark an uncontrollable backlash. It may even spell the end of the nascent democratising project. To further his wide-ranging agenda, Thein Sein, and his allies, need Aung San Suu Kyi in parliament. After fighting for so many years to keep her sidelined it is a remarkable change of fortunes.

I don’t pretend that this logic necessarily applies to the Presidency, or any other high office, but I still expect it holds some weight. It may be worth considering how much could be lost if Aung San Suu Kyi doesn’t get the prominence that she, her backers and many in the international community thinks she deserves. Of course there are obvious constitutional impediments, and much push-and-shove about what they entail.

At this juncture, I guess the calculations in Naypyitaw are becoming more concerted. Aung San Suu Kyi’s future status won’t be conjured in a vacuum. The tricky decisions will deal with how her chances stack up against the ambitions of others jockeying for position: Thein Sein, Shwe Mann, Min Aung Hlaing, Khin Aung Myint, Soe Win, Min Ko Naing, and so many more.

Senior General Min Aung Hlaing, for his part, has recently given an analysis of themilitary role in politics, drawing on recent events in Bangkok. Reflecting on Thailand’s 2014 coup experience he said:

During that time, the military tried its best to mediate. When this didn’t work, depending on the country’s situation, they took control. There was no bloodshed. In our country a similar event happened in 1988.

Back in 2013 here at the Australian National University we discussed the chances ofanother coup in Myanmar. It’s something else for Aung San Suu Kyi, and the rest of us, to consider.