Time to move forward
Stagnating in a stalemate has not taken, and will not take, Burma anywhere-politically or internationally.
Tin-Maung Than
The European Union delegation rightly pointed out last week that trust building is a keyword in the Burmese dialogue between Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, the Nobel Peace laureate and leader of the majority of the people's representatives; and Lt-Gen Khin Nyunt, Secretary (1) of the military government and chief of military intelligence.
Since it has been agreed the meeting will be strictly confidential, we do not have any hint how the dialogue is going on.
In the media, the EU troika did not suggest any idea how international community could help the trust building process. At the moment, it seems there is nothing the EU, United States, Japan or Asean can do but simply wait and watch.
After an exhausting and vain conflict for more than a decade, building trust is a tough job. Yet, both parties can enrich their political life in the process. I think three elements are essential in the current pre-negotiation stage: to close the communication gap; to adopt a systematic approach; and to see politics in a future perspective.
The communication gap: When one does not receive the other's intended message, there is a gap in communication between two persons. The gap is usually immense in politics. In a conflict, the gap is too enormous to reflect each other rightly in one's imagination. So, both sides are working on their own interpretations and assumptions without realising their visual defects, which are perpetually aggravated by their political prejudices along with the punches and pain in the ring.
That was what happened between the opposition and the military. One of the political events that widened this gap between them was the opposition's demand for an interim government in 1988.The ruling socialist group at that time went along with the opposition to hold multi-party elections, but refused to form an interim government. The opposition's concern was fairness in elections.As for the ruling group, it did not see any point in accepting the demand since it had already given its word that the members of Central Executive Committee and the government would not compete in the elections.
Each group did not get the other's intended message and saw the demand or rejection as a deceit. Thus each framed the other in moral context, honesty and integrity-and both were trapped in distrust.Identifying and explaining such events are necessary in building trust. Without closing the gap in communication, both sides may find it hard to hammer out real political differences.
A systematic approach: Politics tends to give us a complete run-down on the good-guy/bad-guy scenario. In the international media, the generals were monsters, while Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and democrats were villains in the state-controlled press.Lack of a mechanism to express discontent and dissenting opinions made people think in black and white. An authoritarian system never allows its people to view various perspectives.
The systematic approach focuses on the system only in the context of the underlying system. Moreover, the approach sees events as an interaction of forces rather than a singular event as a cause. In other words, it is the explanation of the circular cause and effect. The systematic approach says that it is we all, not you or I, who are responsible for any good or bad results. In the Burmese context, the military, the opposition and the people were responsible for what happened in the country.
Future perspective: We need to save our future because we would have already lost it if we remain in the current state of affairs.
The paradigm of past reactive policies on both sides centred on each other. Paradoxically, they were not free at all because they were bound to each other, so that when one caught the other in a corner, the hunter found himself in the same corner too.
At the dialogue, talking about controversial Burmese past and present scenarios without a systematic approach, may result in a vicious circle of blaming each other.Now it is time for the leaders to project themselves into the future in both the regional and international perspective.
Comparative regional projection may further reveal the backwardness of Burma relative to its Asian neighbours. The idea is to turn the negative, that is, poverty and backwardness, into a political asset. Separation of the future from the past and present may need intellectual and imaginative efforts.
When the political focus is shifted to the future and other countries, the space for policy becomes larger for both parties. The thinking becomes global; the outlook becomes outward.
The politics of manipulating each other is compressed. The objective becomes competition with foreign countries and this would be nationalism in a globalised technological age, which will hopefully release the military from its defensive, preventive and isolated nationalism.
Furthermore, the future perspective will also bring a sense of competency into the Burmese political forces, which is, traditionally, highly personal.
International academic support: The international community can enhance the process of trust building by sponsorship of research and seminars. I think they can go parallel with the dialogue. It might be an academic interest to do research in the systematic approach to see how misunderstanding is generated between both sides. The academic community may also hold a seminar on "The Future of Burma". It may be best if it is held in Rangoon, with the participation of leaders from various political interest groups in the country.
The seminar should offer as much information in detail as possible so that participants are really able to live in the future.The objective is to stimulate their nationalism and give them sense of urgency in the future perspective and thus release them from their professional bias.
I am hopeful that the image of both parties in the public's eyes becomes neutral and positive after the dialogue and seminar because the frame of reference is not each other.
The vital strategy at the moment is to release both sides from the past and to look for "an area of least resistance and common interest".
The writer is a former editor of the recently banned Thintbawa (Your Life) magazine.