Burma_Vj_Insight

On-Going Conflict A military coup in the early sixties would change the path of Burma forever. Now independent after British and Japanese occupation, Burma would head towards its own form of socialism and cruise through thirty years isolationism (Egreteau 2). Until 1987, when it came to the brink of a complete socio-economic collapse and the government demonetized small bank notes students across the country began to stand up and demand changes(Egreteau 2). This would lead to the protests of 1988, where thousands of students would be gun-down and killed by the military, which would quickly end the attempt at democracy(Egreteau 4). In August of 2007, a sudden hike of 500% in fuel prices would drive many already impoverished people further into poverty (Horsey 13). This led to the rare act of civil disobedience in Myanmar, comparable in scale only to the protests of 1988 (Horsey 14). This civil disobedience was led by the Buddhist monks, who managed to encourage much of Burma to come out to the streets and protest in hope of change (Horsey 14). Soon the military Junta in place would call upon the police and army to stop these protests, fist by forceful removal of the Buddhist clergy, and eventually the shooting of protesters in the streets (Horsey 22). The internal conflicts of Burma are the longest on-going conflict in the world, lasting since 1948, and they continue even today (Horsey 13). Social Actors There are several social actors which come into play in the conflict in Myanmar during the latter parts of 2007. All play a role in the documentary Burma VJ and can be categorized from the parts they played in the events. Social Movement - The first and probably biggest social actor in this conflict was the social movement which was formed by members of the religious community, like the monks and nuns, and joined by the community at large, which included students and anyone else willing to join in the fight against one of the world's most oppressive regimes. A Social Movement was described as a collection of actors trying to influence the policies created by their government, or to change the relationship between the people in society and the government (Lecture October 19th). This is exactly what the group of religious actors and social actors were trying to accomplish. They wished to strive for a democratic system, and the last straw which pushed the Monks and citizens to action was the doubling of gas prices, leading to even further impoverished conditions than previously experienced. Their main goal was to try and improve the conditions they were living in, and behind that goal, which was front and centre, was the intent to achieve a more democratic society. The method in which this social movement protested and acted out was through civil disobedience. Lovell describes, in his article Crimes of Dissent, civil disobedience as an act which deliberately violates a state's law in order to protest against the actions of the state (Lovell 73). The civil disobedience performed by the Burmese people in 2007 was generally non-violent which follows the belief held by Tilly that for the most part Social Movements are non-violent (Class Lecture October 19th). The civil disobedience carried by the Monks and others was a form of Symbolic Dissent (Lovell 85). Symbollic Dissent is when the illegal actions performed in protest do not directly impact the policy in question (Lovell 85). The illegal acts carried out during the crisis was either breaking of an imposed curfew or the refusal to follow the newly imposed law barring people to gather in groups. Neither of these two actions directly affected the increased tax on gas nor the underlying goal of freeing Aung San Suu Kyi and striving for democracy, and the fall of the generals and the military Junta. This social movement, made up of several sections of the people of Myanmar, represent the Liberalism Ideology. They are desperate to improve the lives of all people in the country, and for the wealth to not only remain with the generals. Liberalism is an ideology which emphasizes the importance of the individual, and liberty to all citizens of the society (Class Lecture October 7th). Another factor of Liberalism which plays into this scenario is that of Justice, which is a main aspect of the ideology, which ensures all people are treated properly, and encourages toleration and diversity, which is important in a country like Myanmar which has been marred by conflict between religions and races, a factor in the taking of power by the Junta in the 80s (Class Lecture October 7th). The Social movement began with the country's monks standing up for the rights of the people, most of whom were treated as second class citizens. This Social Movement, as all Social Movement do, provided for an alternate mean of participating in political mobilization for all these people (Class Lecture October 12th). It is through this process of providing an alternative to the Liberal and Republican forms of citizenship that this social actor, the Social Movement, views the proper form of citizenship is New Citizenship, which allows for the second class citizens and disenfranchised to take part in politics (Class Lecture October 12th). Being a Social Movement, specialist in violence were not necessary, but political entrepreneurs are needed to ensure that people get involved and are committed to the cause and negotiate with the regime (Class Lecture October 21st). One such political entrepreneur was Aung San Suu Kyi, who may not have played an active part in the protests, as she was under house arrest, but was a rallying point for all those involved. The true political entrepreneurs, those who managed to get the people to take to the streets in protest against the government was the Buddhist monks, who began the civil disobedience, and which gave courage to those unwillingly to join the cause at first. The State – The governing body of Myanmar is formed by an Authoritarian regime composed of military leaders. This is demonstrated by the strict policies on obeying the government and its laws, as well as its restrictions against diversity of religion and race and the lack of competitive elections (Class Lecture November 11th). Also, the house arrest of Aung San Suu Kyi shows their willingness to try and repress any dissenting voices or any perceived threats to the regime (Class Lecture November 11th). As opposed to the Liberalism displayed by the Social Movement depicted in the documentary, the Burmese government seems to hold a conservative ideology. Conservatism is against change, which favours the current government, who have refused change even when it it demanded by its people (Class Lecture October 7th). The regime has an emphasis on hierarchy and its retention of authority over all in the country and has shown its willingness to even put aside religious sanctity to ensure the status quo (Class Lecture October 7th). Citizenship in an authoritarian regime is fairly limited, however, Authoritarianism would tend to have a form of republican citizenship, mostly because of its emphasis of duties, which in an authoritarian regime include the duty to follow the government in place (Class Lecture October 12th). Authoritarian citizenship really means equal rights for most, with very little , to absolutely no power over the government and very little protection from government arbitrariness, as seen in Burma with the massive spike in gas prices (Tilly 42). With the Social Movement choosing civil disobedience to try and achieve their goal, the government used political violence to squash the impending threat caused by the protesting individuals. Political violence from the state is a tactic which is used to try and avoid changes in the ruling regime (Class Lecture November 9th). The types of political violence used includes the limitations on rights and liberties of the citizens, like the imposed curfew and limit on number of people allowed to congregate (Class Lecture November 9th). The state used any force necessary to ensure people stopped the civil disobedience. Another tactic employed in Burma by the government was the use of disappearances, which the state will constantly deny and never reveal, which is what they did to the disobeying monks, which were carted off by the government (Class Lecture November 11th). It is here that the government slipped up, as the body of a monk would be found, something which gives credence to the disappearances, and the fact that not only were monks being kinknapped, they also were being beat up, and even killed (Class Lecture November 11th). Also used by the government was the taking of one type of political prisoner; political dissidence, which took the form of popular democratic symbol Aung San Suu Kyi to be put under house arrest, not to be seen until the rising up of monks and citizens (Class Lecture 9th). Also, one can consider the raids and disappearances on monks a the taking of political prisoners for civil disobedience (Class Lecture 9th). All these acts were used to ensure the end of the civil disobedience, and to ensure the survival of the current government. Making Sense of the Conflict Weber's perspective - Using Weber's perspective on politics, it is easy to see how it conforms to the system in place in Burma. Weber, who was an elitist and believed in the few ruling the many, saw politics as intrinsically linked to power, and power is connected to violence, leading to violence being a very real part of politics (Class Lecture September 14th & Sabia 7). Weber believed that violence was just an extension of politics, or even just decisive means of politics (Class Lecture September 14th). Weber went as far as saying that certain things can only be achieved politically thru violence (Class Lecture September 14th). This all points to Weber's understanding the governmental regime seen in Burma VJ as very normal, and perhaps even the correct way to rule a country, in a Machiavellian manner, without the velvet glove, however. Using the perspective laid out by Weber for the functioning of a state, it can be inferred that the Burmese government are ruling as they should, to ensure the continued normal functioning of the state, and that without such brutal and violent measures the state could fall into disrepair and chaos (Class Lecture September 14th). Using Weber's perspective, it seems logical that the Generals would have used such harsh measures to keep the status quo. Continuing with Weber's logic, the government is excusable for its action, but also the monks and their dissident followers must be seen as a political entity, and not simply ignored, as they are concerned with the transfer of power, and hoping it transfers to a democratic force such as Aung San Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy. Foucault's View – Changing perspectives, Foucault looks at power and politics in a slightly different light, and yet his logic can also be applied to the protests in Myanmar during the fall of 2007. Foucault also interprets direct links between politics and power, but differs in how he assesses that power (Class Lecture September 17th). Foucault sees power as not a commodity that can change hands but as something which only exists while in actions (Class Lecture September 17th). Applying this to the conflict between protesting monks and citizens means seeing the violence wreaked upon the protesters was a continuation of politics, and just as politics it is a way to continue the domination of the Burmese people by the Generals who have been in power for several decades now (Class Lecture September 17th). Foucault would view the last several years of domination by the military Junta as a continuation of the war fought in the 1980s, but which now continues in the form of everyday politics, such as the declarations made in the film of imposed curfews and restrictions against and the removal of subsidies on gas prices, which according to Foucault would all be seen a legitimate ways of running a county, and this repression would not be viewed by him as an abuse of power, just simply the nature of politics (Class Lecture September 17th). However, Foucault would also look at those opposing these changes and repressions, the protesters, as simply doing what it is they are suppose to do in the face of repression, which is to resist (Class Lecture September 17th). While the resistance in 2007 is very much conscious, purposeful and collective, there would have been would have been much resistance in a unconscious, accidental and individual form during the twenty years between popular protests (Class Lecture September 17th). The Outsider – Another political conceptualization is that of Arendt, a very different take on politics, one shaped by her life experience, no doubt (Class Lecture September 17th). The idea of politics being the forum in which citizens are free to debate, or in another words it is the process, and not any of the results from such an activity (Class Lecture September 17th). And for this reason, Arendt ideas do not quite fit the situation which happened in Southeast Asia. Her belief that violence is not fundamental to politics, although admittedly often used by politics, means this military Junta who turn to violence in times of uncertainty does not apply the same logic, and the lack of a public forum for those in Myanmar also contradicts Arendt views (Class Lecture September 17th). Law of the Land – A consensus view of law is not very accurate when applying it to the Burmese internal conflict. That is because the law in Myanmar does not protect the people from arbitrary abuses from the government, while in fact it is the complete opposite, that being a conflict perspective of law (Class Lecture September 21st). The conflict view of law sees the laws of a country as further means of repressing the people, and ensuring the survival of the status quo (Class Lecture September 21st). Under this idea, the law simply pretends to protect the citizens from the government, while in fact it is another tool of repression (Class Lecture September 21st). A perfect example of this in Burma VJ is the curfew which is put into place and the banning on public groupings of 3 or more people, citing security, when in fact they are trying to stifle the voice of the people. Rhetoric – The state uses rhetoric to try and make everything sound in their favour, or be positive towards the goal they are trying to reach, all the while trying to contradict others, such as Joshua, his network and the Democratic Voice of Burma (Class Lecture September 21st). Their rhetoric within the country went so far as to claim the pictures and video of the protests and shootings that were being streamed around the globe were falsified and invented by the Democratic Voice of Burma, and continued to deny all on-going crisis. The rhetoric also continued the labeling of the Democratic Voice of Burma as an illegitimate group, as well and forcing the disbanding of Aung San Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy and labeling it a illegal and illegitimate party. Myanmar Media – The media, transformed by its reliance on advertizing, is the main tool for the state to get its rhetoric to the citizens of the country (Mullen 218). These media outlets, which overtime evolve into tools for the government also tend to work in favour of the elite, those who control the countries capital (Mullen 218). In the documentary the media is used by both sides of the conflict. The government uses it within the country to try and weave the story into what what they wish it to be. But the protesters also have means of using the media to reach out, and that is trough the Democratic Voice of Burma and its transmissions which eventually reach around the globe, thanks to people like Joshua and his network of colleagues who risk their lives everyday by filming. The work done by Joshua and all the others really give backing to Lippman's idea that journalists work as a sort of intelligence group, gathering information for both sides, however Joshua and his colleagues are very much like this, especially with their need to avoid detection at all cost (Class Lecture September 28th). Lippman also makes claims that without the media, there is no public opinion (Class Lecture September 28th). With the Democratic Voice of Burma filming and branching out to as many people as possible about the protests started by the monks, they were successful in mobilizing the people of Burma and having them join the monks in the street, to stand up to the authoritarian government. The concept of citizenship helps to understand concept due to the people being treated as second class citizens in their very own country. And their striving for a new citizenship through a popular social movement which brought together the religious community along with the young people and students, and all others who wished for a change. Violence – The only side really using violence is that of the government, who forcefully removed the monks from the streets during the protests and from their homes during the nights, and shot and killed protesters, used several kinds of violence. The military Junta used physical violence during the protests, economical violence by doubling the price of gas overnight, leading to even greater poverty, political violence by refusing democracy, what the people want, and their inspiration in Aung San Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy (Class Lecture September 9th). Symbolic violence does not seem as prominent in Burma, as far as was depicted in the documentary, as it is fairly homogenous as a group, but it is still present in the manner in which they try to ensure that the people of Burma will continue to follow the regime, and to try and reduce the occurrences such as in 1988 and 2007. The traces of symbolic violence in Burma VJ are slight, but always present. References Egreteau, R. 2009. The Repression of August 8-12 1988 Uprising in Burma/Myanmar. In The Online Encyclopedia of Mass Violence. http://www.massviolence.org/IMG/article_PDF/The-repression-of-the-August-8-12- 1988-8-8-88-uprising-in.pdf Horsey, R. 2008. The Dramamtic Events of 2007 in Myanmar: Domestic and International Implications. http://epress.anu.edu.au/myanmar02/pdf/ch02.pdf Lovell, J. 2009. Dissent as “Pure” Crime. In Crimes of Dissent: Civil Disobedience, Criminal Justice and the Politics of Conscious. New York: New York University Press p. 65-102 Mullen, A. and Klaehen, J. 2010. The Herman-Chomsky Propaganda model: A Critical Approach to Analyzing Mass Media Behaviour Sociology Compass 4(4): 215-229 Sabia, D. 1996. Weber's Political Ethics and the Problem of Dirty Hands. Journal of Management History2(1):6-20 Tilly, C. 2003. Violence as Politics. In The Politics of Collective Violence. Cambridge:Cambrige Press. p.26-54