The Nation
Published on Oct 3, 2002

Burmese domestic politics has undergone significant changes in recent years. Although peace and national reconciliation with various ethnic groups have not been fully realised, the Burmese government has already celebrated the success of cease-fire agreements which were initiated more than a decade ago.

As part of strengthening the national reconciliation process, the military government decided to change the country's name from Burma to Myanmar.

It reasoned that different ethnic groups could now identify themselves as the people of Myanmar, in accordance with the state programme on national-identity construction. It further claimed that the new name conveys better the idea of a true unified country. Yet, some argue that the name change only served the interests of the ruling Burmans.

In reality, racial discrimination has been consistently carried out by the military government by incessantly promoting Burman supremacy.

The government asserts, "This land is very, very old. The fossil primates and other fossils found in the Ponduang region are 40 million years old. According to evidence of Stone Age and Iron Age, the ancient Myanmars were born on this land and lived here. Myanmars can be called a people enjoying longevity."

But Western historians have challenged this view, arguing that in fact the Mon and the Karen were settled in the area known today as Burma long before the Burmans arrived.

The rewriting of Burmese history can thus been seen as an attempt to nullify these ethnic groups' claims to self-rule, something which has political implications in Burmese politics today.

The policy of promoting Burman superiority includes other kinds of discrimination ranging from the ethnic minorities not being allowed to further their education to brutal violations of human rights.

The government has been distributing identity cards known as "National Registration Cards," which indicate the bearer's ethnic background and domicile. This card effectively determines the social roles of the ethnic minorities, and social benefits are rarely given to them. To obtain full Burmese citizenship, one must be able to prove that one's ancestors were resident in Burma before the first British annexation in 1824. Despite this racially justified discrimination, the Burmese junta projects to the world the myth of peaceful coexistence with ethnic minorities and the achievement of a state created by an integrated national culture.

The government repeatedly employs the term "national culture" to explain state policy, particularly concerning the safeguarding of domestic security.For example, anyone in possession of a computer and access to the Internet without the consent of the authorities can be imprisoned for up to 15 years on the grounds that this may bring in something unsuitable for local culture, thus posing a threat to national identity.

But what exactly is Burmese culture and identity?

Failing to define it precisely, the military government claims that culture means something very important for the unity of Burma. This delivers a message that culture must reflect a sense of national unity and belonging which, as the government says, has been the nation's first priority since it regained independence from the British in 1948.

On Independence Day in 1997 and 1998, General Than Shwe, chairman of the SPDC, announced, "In every independent country, national spirit needs to be kept alive and unified. We need to preserve our national prestige, character and heritage, and renew our ancient Myanmar even though we have to adapt Western civilisation."

The military government makes no secret in taking the lead in cultural revitalisation. It also prescribes that preservation of culture is the duty of every citizen. Here, the protection of local culture is forced upon the various ethnic minorities who, ironically, are permanently perceived as alien to Burmese society.

While preserving local culture is put to the fore, the ethnic minorities, as well as the Burmans themselves, are forbidden to discuss any issue concerning culture. The fact that local culture becomes a subject of domestic taboo can be construed as the government being aware of any political challenges that may come in the form of social disorder.

Behind the identity crisis and the cultural confusion, Burma continues to receive financial assistance from foreign donors, such as Singapore, for restoration projects of historical places. Indeed, the restoration of historical places began in 1962, the year that witnessed the advent of the "Burmese way to socialism" under the leadership of General Ne Win. Since then, the Burmese military leaders have had their own discourse on culture and national identity. Later generations of Burmese leaders quickly defined "Burmeseness" as socialism, and then authoritarianism. This fiercely clashed with another Burmeseness defined by the NLD's Aung San Suu Kyi as "democracy."

To counter Suu Kyi, the military refused to recognise the result of the general election in 1990. In the New Light of Myanmar, the government openly attacked Suu Kyi as extrinsic to the national identity, writing: "Because the entire people of Myanmar cannot tolerate the NLD, they held mass meetings, shouting slogans and holding signboards such as 'Do not let the wife of an Englishman continue to live in the nation' and 'The one who is destroying the race is our enemy.'"

Culture means many things in Burma.It can mean identity and civilisation which accompanies the sense of politeness and obedience to state authority. It also accompanies an undeniable hegemony of the Burmese elites who disregard the people's freedom and the quest for self- determination by the ethnic minorities.

The cultural artefact is not a new phenomenon.Certainly, despotism is not a new order in the political history of Burma, at least so long as the military junta remains firmly in power.

Pavin Chachavalpongrun was recently awarded a PhD from the Department of Political Studies, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London.