INFORMATION SHEET No.A-0742 (I)

[OKKAR66129@xxxxxxx]

burmanet2-l@xxxxxxxx, burma-open-forum-list@xxxxxxx
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32)
X-Sender: strider@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

MYANMAR INFORMATION COMMITTEE
YANGON

INFORMATION SHEET
No.A-0742 (I)                 26th December 1998



Editorial

THE VIEW FROM THE EMBASSY OF MYANMAR OTTAWA

"THE PHONOMENON OF POLITICAL POPULARlTY-AN ANALYSIS "

	Before one analyses the political popularity of an individual perhaps it
would be more appropriate to begin with the examination of  this very
phenomenon itself.

What makes a politician popular ?

What makes this popularity ephemeral or transient in most cases ?

What makes it sometimes enduring and sustained for generations ?

	Since an analytical study of such an abstract phenomenan can be a perplexing
exercise - it is probably best done by looking at real - life events that have
taken place in contemporary history of this world.

	First of all there is ample evidence that to achieve national popularity even
in a democratic society does not necessarily depend initially on political
credentials of the individual. He might even have achieved national fame by
being a successful pop star, a movie actor, or some sports star, including
being a wrestler, one of whom has 
recently been elected to a gubernatorial position in the United States.
Pundits 
explained that when the electorate gets tired of these politicians and their
political ploys that seem to be leading them nowhere the electorate have not
shown any mercy in dumping him or her in favour of any " non - political " and
refreshing phenomenon available for election.?

	This has been, to the surprise of politicai analysts, happening in countries
that have been in the fore - front of established democracies for many
decades. When one : turns to a country that only a decade ago decided to
affect a transition towards 
multiparty democracy, such as the Union of Myarlmar, one gets critically
confronted with an unparalled apprehension as to who and which phenomenon the
simple-minded and inexperienced electorate, who has not been expcfised before
to the stress and strain of multiparty democratic politics, might choose as
their leader. This is so, 
especially when complicated further in less developed democracies by financial
temptations and forceful intimidations imposed upon them by unscrupulous
politicians who would resort to any means to defeat an opponent.

	To the educated and the well-informed constituencies the most common 
dilemma faciing them is the question of whether the most popular politician
being the best canelidate to lead the country. This is the main fear in the
Union of Myanmar and that is one good reason that it feels it needs time to
change from one system to another.

	If one now considers why so many popular politicians of the 1970s, and 80's
have now become almost forgotten relics of the past (exemplified by the so-
called "Gorl archev Syndrome " ) despite even having won nobel peace prizes
and so on --many interesting causative factors emerge.

A. 	Their " achievements "focussed on distinct benefits oriented towards the
needs of powerful international "blocs" and their satellite nations at the
expense of his or her own country being disintegrated and in one instance the
largest world power has been reduced to a minor role in international affairs.

B. 	In economic terms, mainly because of the chaos that followed the sudden
transformation of its political systern, the cost has been so disastrously
high that the  
" backlash " frorn the people almost completely wiped out the popularity at
the polls within his or her own country.

Such is the ephemeral nature of political popularity, one might console
oneself, - but isn't this downfall the result of one's own action?

Although lessons have been drawn from e powerful countries - smaller countries
of the region in similar situations seem to be undergoing the same fate
although on a smaller scale in accordance with their size, economic prowess
etc.

In East Asia the models of change have been different. Political change has
been cautiously controlled in the world's most populous country and some of
it's neighbours while economic reforms are being made at a rapid pace. Again
in econornic terms they seem to be doing better than the other models despite
the " Asian Flu " slowing them down in their growth rates but only to an
extent. Besides,  they have collective leaderships and exert some control on
emergence from within or by insertion from abroad populist politicians at this
stage of development.

Among these countries, the Union of Myanmar went one step ahead of it's
neighbours ( that practices single party political systems but developing
market oriented economic structures )by allowing political parties to be
formed as a first step towards 
democratization.

This has led to emergence of populist politicians with affiliations to outside
powers who have their own vested interests and who seem to be completely
misreading and misconstruing the true intentions of the government of Myanmar.
Banking on external support and assuming that internal political popularity to
be an " eternal birthright ", they demanded an immediate transfer of
govermnent authority as soon as they won a majority of seats in an election
which was held by the government in 1990 ( but not contesting ) to form an
elected assembly which would oversee the development of a firm and enduring
national constitution.

This was the begining of an era of international confusion when Western 
Governments also joined the chorus supporting such a politician and while
ignoring her slogan of " dialogue or face utter devastation ", showered her
with prizes including the coveted Nobel peace prize. But when the Government
steadfastly stood it's course and it's own agenda of gradual evolution towards
democracy, the western powers began to build up the pressure on Myanmar by
calling for sanctions and innumerable negative measures that actually achieved
little - and whatever little negative effects they achieved was unfortunately
felt by people at the grass roots especially in areas where the restoration of
peace and tranquillity with the former ethnic insurgents have been achieved
and where infrastructure development was begining . It is worthy of note that
the political party have played no role in either making peace with armed
insurgencies or in the development of the regions.

It is ironic that sanctions! ban tourism! stop investments ! have become the
key words of the political party that won the largest majority of seats in
1990, who should in fact, be helping these border areas in their
rehabilitation. They don't seem to care what happen to people who need jobs
related to tourism and who need 
agricultural assistance, personnel training etc.- so long as they get into
positions of governing the country.

This seem to have angered the people of Myanmar, and caused 
disenchantment among  it's own political supporters who started to abandon the
leader and her party last year and, which in recent weeks have become
resignations 
en - masse. Last few weeks have seen a " back lash " in the form of mass
resignations of elected offiicials and party committee members as well as
closure of many district level offices of the National League For Democracy
and it seems to be a continuing spontaneous process rather than a few isolated
events that took place because of 
" intimidation " as alleged by desperate poliiticians whose popularity within
the country are now deeply in doubt .The questions now are -

-Has the undoing of a political party's popularity begun with it's ephemeral
nature starkly displaying itself ? From all indicators it seems to be the case
and if so who is to be held responsible ?

As discussed before, isn't this dowllfall the result of people's displeasure
for what these politicians have done to them ?

Isn't it time to realise by friend and foe alike that the national convention 
process be now supported and recognszed as the sole legitimate mechanism for
the Union of Myanmar to make the transition towards, a disciplined and orderly
multiparty democratic system ?

Isn't it now time for the international community to focus less on popularity
of individuals and start to give priority to policies over personalities ?

Isn't it high time to stop criticizing and making unfounded allegations, but
rather help the country make it's democratic transition by the only way it can
be achieved ?

Finally and most importantly isn't it time for the main political party to
give up its confrontational attitude before it's too late, and assume a new
role of cooperation with the government and renouncing external political
affiliations?

The answer is a plain and simple, YES! and

The time is now! - for the strength of a country lies with the people within
the country and nowhere else.

***********************