As a Burmese-American who has been to the recluse nation of Burma (called "Myanmar" by the military junta), I feel the need to voice my disdain of its government. For over 3 decades now, Burma has been ruled by the military in various guises, but all similar in one respect: authoritarian rule. The UN Security Council added Burma to its agenda recently, despite objections from China and Russia, countries known for their lack of citizen freedoms (a Russian journalist was recently killed by a mob for publishing an exposé while a Chinese abortion activist is currently imprisoned supposedly inciting unruly mobs).
But, neither of these countries compares to Burma. The military has a stranglehold on all forms of media. Works of all forms are heavily censored, and it is illegal in Burma to listen to BBC Radio. In the annual Reporters sans frontières' Worldwide Press Freedom index, Burma was listed No. 163, out of a grand 167 countries. All these restrictions serve one purpose, to prevent further uprisings or coups. When I visited Burma in 2005, I found people very nervous about talking about politics or badmouthing the junta. Why? They feared being persecuted or executed.
And now, the military claims to be progressing on a "roadmap to democracy", after promises of fair elections were made in 1988 (Aung San Suu Kyi's party won), and were never honored. Democracy, freedom, what all Burmese have been craving so long will not come, or it will, at a price. The military began a National Convention to write yet another Constitution. But, the catch is that every person involved in writing must be approved by the government. Where's the point in this? Like The Economist said, the military generals will merely "shed their uniforms" and continue to rule, as if that were legitimate. Can a civilian government really work if it is controlled by the military? Seems unlikely. Although the Constitution has not been finalized, it would be a fair assumption to think that it will include power-sharing among military personnel, and a puppet head-of-state. And freedom of speech? Considering Southeast Asia's tendencies to be very conservative in allowing open communication, the Burmese can expect nil.
There is hope for the Burmese, though. That is, if China, India, and Russia stop turning away from Burma's burgeoning HIV rate, position as the world's 2nd largest producer of heroin, and one of the world's most repressive states. But in today's international realm of politics, money rules. As long as those countries continue to feed off of Burma's oil reserves and the like, we can expect to see Burma as run-down in 20 years as it is today.
