Can we Burmese take on a nonviolent revolution?

Zaw Naing Wynn, Australia, u4097123@alumni.anu.edu.au

14 January 2011

Since her release last November, Daw Suu has given numerous speeches, talks and media
interviews to the people both inside and outside Burma. Generally nothing is new in what
she has been saying since then. In fact, she has been speaking the same of what she had
said before over the past 22 years: rule of law, dialogue, national reconciliation, unity and
nonviolence1 as a method for change.

What is new this time is not what she speaks, but the approach she has taken. Instead of
touring the country and giving speeches, she has chosen to focus more on practical projects
that aims to bridge the gaps between ‘the people’s aspiration for freedom and democracy’
and ‘their capacity to realise that aspiration with actions’. In other words, she is trying to
empower and equip the people with essential political capabilities to help prepare them for
social and political activism. She is doing so through direct and immediate actions.

Why is she taking new approach?

Over the past 20 years, she has inspired the people to aspire for democracy as a way of life
and as a political system for Burma like any other democratic countries in the modern world.
But the people’s capacity to realise their potentials and to transform their aspiration into
actions has been suppressed by successive totalitarian military dictatorship.

The people of Burma have been disempowered for far too long by systematic repressions
since 1962. For too long they have been deprived of their human basic capability and
capacity.2 For generations, they have been denied of access to proper health, education,
basic living standards and security. They have been treated inhumanely and brutally
oppressed to live in fear and struggle with poverty and natural disasters.

In short, they have been struggling to survive their daily lives. Their life capacities have been
limited and their political capability has been kept far out of their reach for half a century.

Daw Suu knew this very well. She has inspired millions, but her political speeches and
messages over the past 22 years have not been heeded. There is no choice. She has to
empower the people. And it has to be through direct and immediate actions and more
importantly through examples.

1
Note different spellings of nonviolence’ (one word) and ‘non-violence’ (two words with a hyphen in between):
‘Non-violence’ refers to an act, for example non-killing; to an event, for example, the UN International
day of non-violence on 2 October (a day to honour Mahatma Gandhi who was born on 2 October
1869).
‘Nonviolence’ refers to a philosophy and strategy for social and political change that rejects the use of
violence.
2
Nobel Prize winner for Economics, Professor Amartya Sen called it ‘Capability deprivation’ to describe
concepts of disempowerment and disadvantage.

1
New initiatives to support political prisoners and their families are one example. It is not so
much about what she does, but how she does illustrates her efforts to empower the people
through her party, the National League for Democracy (NLD). She does so, not by giving the
instructions or telling her party members what to do, but by helping them think, develop the
program and implement it. She herself also participated in that process.

Another example is the issue of international sanctions on Burma. She has repeatedly
expressed her view that it is not up to herself telling the people whether the sanctions
should be lifted or not. Instead, she wants the people to tell her. She wants to listen to
them and be guided by their discussions about the issues.

How she and the NLD can help make the people’s discussions happen is yet soon to be seen.
At the moment, the NLD has prepared an economic paper that can inform people’s
discussions about the sanction. But more is yet to be done, for example, advocacy and
activism for platforms or mechanisms that provide the people free and fair and well-
informed discussions about economic and social issues.3

But overall, the approach she has taken now reflects the bottom up, not the top down
(authoritarian) way of telling people what to do. In fact, she dislikes so much the NLD asking
her what to do.4 There are many reasons for it. One is ‘telling people what to do and how to
do it’ is a form of disempowerment as people will not learn to know what to and how to do
it since they can expect someone to tell them what to think. The other reason is it can also
create reliance upon and dependence on others, for example on her alone. That she would
never do.

The seeds of a government that succeeds any revolution are already planted within the
revolution. If violence is used to overthrow a government as a method for change, then the
people will be thought that violence is an acceptable method to effect change. On the other
hand if nonviolence is used, the people will see that nonviolence is an effective method and
desirable and should be the norm, and therefore a better and long lasting government.

Daw Suu is fully aware of this. She has envisioned and wants to plant the seeds of
nonviolence in Burma once and for all for a peaceful change in the country for generations
to come. By empowering the people, Daw Suu is trying to lay foundation for nonviolence as
a method for change.

But it is not a short-term, but a long-term method. It took Mahatma Gandhi more than 50
years fighting for the rights of Indians and their independence from Britain (1893-1947).
Martin Luther King Jr., the youngest Nobel Peace Prize winner and inspired by Gandhi,
fought all his life using nonviolence means to change the thinking and attitudes of the White
and to end racial segregation and racial discrimination. Even in the world’s freest and
democratic country (the United States), King’s nonviolence struggle was not easy. It was

3
Discussions on political issues may not be feasible under the new (but same old) regime. And this does not
seems to be the one that Daw Suu is pursuing, not because the new system has sidelined her, but for a tactical
reason.
4
In addition to this, many exiled Burmese activists have been busy lining up with journalists and her well-
wishers to ask the same questions “What can we do to help you?”

2
another Gandhi nonviolence struggle. And still, the struggle continues today even after his
(King’s) death.

Burmese military dictators are much more violent than British were in India at that time.
They are far less civilised and far lack decency. There are far few educated and intelligent
activists in Burma. Media, press and civil society in Burma today are far less free than those
in India under British rule at that time.

Under those circumstances, nonviolence will be much more challenging, probably the most
challenging in the history of Burma. Daw Suu alone is not enough to take on this far more
challenging non-violent revolution. To make it possible, Burma will need hundreds of non-
violent resisters like Gandhi5 (and his Satyagrahi6 non-violent resisters) and King.

Burma will also need non-violent strikers. Nonviolence is not just about passively defending
and resisting oppression. It is not just about a defensive but an offensive. 7 It also
presupposes an ability to strike oppression. It is an ability to seek a target and striking it, for
example an ability to expose various forms of oppression and strike them with various non-
violent methods8.

But for these non-violent methods to work require some basic decency and moral displayed
by the rulers, a degree of freedom of expression and free media, rule of law and educated
and well informed civil society.

Under current circumstances under the dictatorship rule in Burma, how can a nonviolent
struggle be effective?

For it to be effective and to work requires extraordinarily talented non-violent resisters and
strikers that the world has ever produced. It does not need a university education and the
western educated. But it needs strong personal qualities such as a moral willingness to act,
being truthful to oneself, self-sacrifice for conviction in the cause and non-aversion of an
opponent.

The key to these qualities is the self-reform or self-transformation. Daw Suu calls it spiritual
revolution, which she has repeatedly urged all activists to embrace over the past 20 years,
which is evidenced in what she said ‘a true revolution must be that of revolution of the
spirit’. Founding father Bogyoke Aung San9 referred to it as ‘spiritual improvement and
betterment’.

The two (nonviolence and self-reform) does not have to be followed in sequence. But one
cannot work with the other; for example, nonviolence cannot work without a self-reform.

5
Gandhi called his non-violence struggle ‘truth force’, or Satyagraha as in Sanskrit. Burmese ‘Tatya’ comes
from ‘Satya’ meaning truth. Graha (Gayhar in Burmese) means force or path.
6
‘Satyagrahi’ means non-violent resisters in Sanskrit.
7
Nonviolent struggle is understood in English as passive resistance. Disliking this meaning, Gandhi invented a
name for his nonviolent struggle as ‘Satyagraha’ meaning truth force.
8
Inspired by Gandhi, Gene Sharp (an American pacifist) researched and documented 198 methods of non-
violent actions. He classified them into three main categories: 1) protest and persuasion; 2) noncooperation;
and 3) intervention.
9
Bogyoke Aung San was inspired by Gandhi who was top on the list of world leaders who inspired him.

3
Self-reform can take place both individually in each person and collectively at societal level.
Only when these reforms happen, can then the nonviolence be effective.

Over the past twenty years, Daw Suu has called for all activists to reform themselves
(spiritual revolution) as part of political revolution. This call is to prepare them (activists) for
the nonviolence struggle. Twenty years is long enough for a nation to transform itself to a
newer and higher level.10 Still, no one has returned her call. It is clear that self-reform
(spiritual revolution) is far out of our reach to embrace. We are powerless and incapable of
reforming ourselves, let alone reforming our people, our country and our politics.

In that case, what can be done?

Daw Suu has found a way, which can be a stepping stone to embracing self-reform. That
stepping stone is an empowerment of the people. For that reason, she has chosen to focus
on empowering the people through direct and immediate actions (mentioned above). This is
a new beginning for the people inside Burma. She seems determined to carry on with this
task to prepare them for the nonviolence struggle for the long term for however long it
might take.

We, exiled activists, however, are left to empower ourselves alone. We live in the free and
democratic countries where we are surrounded by networks of empowerment mechanisms
such as advocacy, activism and interest group, from whom we can learn directly or
indirectly. We have lived in these democratic countries but we have not been able to
develop basic democratic and political capabilities, which are prerequisites for engaging in
nonviolence.

If we are to empower ourselves, we must first address our moral lacking. The first step is,
we must first step outside of our comfort zones of living our material lives. We should
refrain from driving luxury cars, passing the time with plasma TVs, alcohol and
entertainments, and spending too much time cooking to fulfil and satisfy our own (more
than essential) appetites. This demands a life-style change; a change to live a basic life, not
consuming more than our needs. If we could do that, it will provide a foundation to our self-
empowerment.

Second, we also must learn to take responsibility for our own failed revolution. Our failures
are not so much because of the military dictatorship. We must share and bear the blames.
If we continue to shift the blames on just the military regime alone, we will not see the
whole truth of what make our revolution failed. We cannot learn without first
acknowledging and taking responsibility for our failures. And without understanding of the
origins and causes of our failures, we cannot find the path to freedom.

Third, we must develop a moral sense of responsibility to act within us. A revolution is
impossible without this moral sense of responsibility to act. It is often referred to as
‘freedom to act’ (a positive notion of freedom); it is about a responsibility to act, not about
an individual right to demand. Ancient Greek and Roman called it freedom to serve or

10
China, for example, has become the world’s second largest economy since its adoption of major reforms in
the 1990s. It has sent a Chinese man into the space and back. Education for the young generation in Shanghai
is now top in the world in maths, science and literacy (OECD December 2010 report).

4
freedom to participate in community affairs or national affairs. 11 This was the notion of
freedom that inspired many founding fathers of the United States, including George
Washington, in their fight for independence from Britain in the 18th century.12

Fourth, the key to political reforms is the self-reform. Unless the self-reform occurs, politics
in Burma and among us in exile will continue to be the power rule of the mighty over the
weak. This is an analogy to law of the jungle where the strong dominate the weak. It is a
law which is outdated in this modern world. Unfortunately, the reality is we are still being
ruled by law of the jungle.

Last, but not the least, we cannot fight nonviolence as a method for a political change when
our hearts are still filled with hatreds and self-pities; our souls with ignorance and denials;
our minds still idle. These, together with our authoritarian attitudes, make our tendencies
towards more violence than non-violence. For nonviolence to work hatreds cannot be
fought with hatreds, ignorance with ignorance and authoritarian ism with authoritarianism.
Hatreds have to be fought with love, ignorance with reasons and authoritarianism with
democratic principles. So this demands nonviolent resisters and strikers to have strong
personal qualities. That is why the self-reform is a first step and a prerequisite for them.

Gandhi once said ‘nonviolence is not a weapon for the weak, but the strong’. To be strong,
we all must embrace self-reform (spiritual revolution). We must reform and transform
ourselves to a newer and higher level than what we are today. A positive notion of freedom,
i.e., ‘freedom to serve’ is our inspiration to strive for and the only one needed during a
revolution. We can afford wait to enjoy ‘freedom from’ at later time after the revolution.

Only when that happens, can we Burmese take on a nonviolent struggle for political change.

If not, violence is the only alternative way. 13 There is no middle way between violence and
nonviolence. The choice is either one or both at the same time.

To help us think and make choice, here is what the founding father of nonviolent struggle
who was also known as Mahatma (for his great soul), Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi said to
those unsure about what means to use to defend against injustice and oppression:

If your choice is between being non-violent because you're a coward, and being violent; be
violent, don't be a coward, that's worse than being violent.

Zaw Naing Wynn

11
‘Freedom to’ is a positive concept. ‘Freedom from’ (also known as individual freedom) is a negative concept.
The ancient Greek term ‘Polis’ had a meaning that refers to this notion of freedom expressed in their
community or city state. Those who do not take a responsibility to act and participate in politics were
denounced as ‘Idiotic’. For them there were no individual freedoms (or ‘freedom from’). It was the rights or
freedom to serve in various capacities such as jury and senator etc.
12
The enlightenment’s idea of freedom (freedom as natural birth rights) inspired later founding fathers
including Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry and James Madison.
13
Violence has various meaning from an individual’s passive-aggressive behaviours to a nation’s armed struggle
for a political change.