The politics of authoritarianism: the state and political soldiers in burma, indonesia, and thailand by Chao-Tzang Yawnghwe M. A., University of British Columbia, 1990 B. A., University of Rangoon, 1961

CHAPTER THREE

BURMA: MILITARY INTERVENTION AND THE POLITICS OF AUTHORITARIAN DOMINATION


Introduction: The Politics of the State and the Military in Burma
Military rule began in Burma in 1962, and was dominated by Ne Win (Thakin Shu Maung¹⁴⁶) until the "people’s power" uprising of 1988. This was bloodily supp-ressed by the military, which has remained in power to the present. In this chapter, because of the prolonged presence of the military in politics and the important role it has played in shaping the contours of state-society relations and the political land-scape, the examination of the phenomenon of military intervention will go beyond the conceptualization of it as a response to crises, implicitly connoting limitations to the intrusion of the military into politics. Military intervention will be analyzed as one intertwined with the reorganization of power, the reconfiguration of state structures, and the re-ordering of state-society relations.

As mentioned in the preliminary chapters, military intervention occurs in complex, diverse historical, socio-economic, and political settings, and is triggered by diverse events and factors. Soldiers are motivated to intervene by a mix of factors -- in addition to a situation of "praetorian" politics characterizing the politics of many Third World countries. This is a situation where groups, including the military, participate directly in politics. Although politics in Burma was (and is) praetorian, the military has not -- unlike its Thai counterpart -- intervened frequently. It has intervened only three times -- indirectly in 1958, then in 1962, and 1988. But, as will be discussed, it has dominated the political landscape and has been pivotal as the power base of its chief and ruler, Ne Win, in establishing and maintaining a harsh military-authoritarian order for over two decades, and it still dominates politics and the state up to the present.

The military in Burma has its roots in the politics of a global war. Its leaders, were politicians first and foremost. They were "Thakins" -- members of a nationalist movement, the Dobama Asi-Ayone (or Dobama, "We Bama"¹⁴⁷ movement) -- who became leaders and officers in a series of nationalist armies created by the Japanese during World War II. The world-view of these military leaders -- the military Thakins -- was shaped by their Dobama creed, with its highly statist and authoritarian ideals.¹⁴⁸ The military Thakins have viewed themselves, for reasons which will be dis-cussed, as much more than armed servants of the state. In their view, they fought almost singlehanded against both the British colonizers and the Japanese invaders and they won independence. After independence, they did not intervene in politics until 1958, although they were extensively involved, as were their Indonesian counterparts, in non-military roles.

The military Thakins, like their counterparts in Indonesia, were not happy with the post-independence state, the Union of Burma, dominated by the AFPFL (Anti-Fascist People’s Freedom League), a political front of the Thakins. The new state was more or less democratically organized and comparatively inclusive from a polit-ical and ethnic standpoint.¹⁴⁹ It was not in keeping with the Dobama creed which they adhered to. Nonetheless, in the first decade of independence, the military Thakins, as officers of the armed forces, the Bama Tatmadaw,¹⁵⁰ defended the AFPFL state and civilian Thakin power-holders against challengers, also armed (a legacy of major World War II campaigns fought in Burma) -- as will be discussed.¹⁵¹ In defending the state in a "internal war" situation, and undertaking "national security" tasks, the military in Burma, as in Indonesia, gained much political leverage and, in time, grew into a powerful, quite autonomous center within the state.

In 1957, when the AFPFL, ruling party, split into two camps and many cliques, the door was opened for soldiers to enter politics. "Young Turk" Brigadiers in the military stepped in as "caretakers" in 1958, to "save" the country from splitting -- as had the ruling party -- into two, but returned to the barracks in 1960. As will be examined, the first military's foray into politics was not led by the military’s chief, Ne Win, but by "Young Turk" Brigadiers who placed their chief, Ne Win, as head of a military caretaker government. Quite uncharacteristically -- to judge from his later performance -- Ne Win chose to rule as a constitutional military caretaker. Elections were promised for 1960. Even though the AFPFL (Stable) faction favored by the military was humiliated in these elections, the military kept its pledge -- given by its chief, Ne Win -- to return to the barracks.

In 1962, the military, unified by Ne Win -- after the purge of most "Young Turks" Brigadiers prominent in the military-caretaking government -- stepped dramat-ically onto the political stage. This time, it was led personally by Ne Win, now the undisputed leader, and he meant business. As will be discussed, he proceded to re-organize political power in an authoritarian direction. Like Sarit in 1958 (in Thai-land), he abrogated the 1947-1948 Constitution; abolished parliament; banned political parties; detained the Prime Minister, U Nu, cabinet members, the Chief Justice, Members of Parliament, leaders of non-Bama ethnic segments (especially of the Shan), politicians (both of the left and the right political spectrum), and so on; closed down papers and imposed censorship and, just three months after the coup, had a number of protesting Rangoon University students killed. In contrast to Sarit and Indonesia's Suharto, Ne Win decreed a "socialist" economy, and set up a "socialist," one-party, military-authoritarian order around the BSPP, with himself as supreme leader.

The genesis of the Burmese state in its modern form lies in the economic expansion of the West and its political by-product, colonialism. It is a classic case of the flag inevitably following trade, as John Furnivall notes.¹⁵⁵ Over time, "planting the flag" became a larger project involving the reorganization and restructuring of pre-capitalist, agrarian societies, and the erosion of their political and socio-cultural "superstructures." This led to the "modernization" and "rationalization" of politics and governance to ensure a smooth ride for capitalism. Furnivall’s comment that the tropics were "colonized with capital" might be reworded as " colonized with capital, for capital."¹⁵⁶ The establishing of European colonies changed the colonized entities in two main ways. Old "kingdoms" were transformed into "modern" territorial, political-administrative units along Western lines. Also, colonial methods of man-agement founded on notions of market rationality, commercial efficiency, and so on, forcibly imposed on "native" societies a European-capitalist universalizing hegem-ony.¹⁵⁷ Despite Robert Taylor’s view -- influenced by nationalist rhetoric, perhaps -- that Burma could have modernized without colonialism, British colonial rule did bring about modernization.¹⁵⁸

British rule in Burma was relatively short, lasting from 1885 to 1942.¹⁵⁹ But with the annexation of 1885, change was rapid and irreversible. The British broke the cycle of "anarchy and conquest"¹⁶⁰ and installed a more or less modern state and structures.¹⁶¹ In keeping with the "modernity" of this enterprise, there was a gradual shift in Burma’s political status, until it became in the 1930s a distinct political entity -- Ministerial Burma -- albeit one still under the imperial flag.¹⁶²

In the way the British reorganized political power in colonial Burma, we can discern some rather clear democratic features. From the 1920s onwards, there exist-ed intermediary institutions, associations, and procedures that allowed societal forces to participate in politics and even to set themselves up in opposition to the state. Those who participated in the open political arena in opposition to British colonial rule from the 1930s onwards, were the young Thakins.

Referring back to the discussion in the theoretical framework of the ways polit-ical power is organized to yield authoritarian or democratic outcomes, it can be said that the colonial state in Burma was authoritarian and quite autonomous from society, in that it was foreign-imposed and ultimately responsible to London. The Governor, for example, was "above politics" and could not be removed by the legislature, introduced in Burma from the 1920s onwards.¹⁶³ State officials likewise stood apart from society politically and socially, further insulating the state from society.

On the other hand, state officials were public servants in the real sense of the word. They were forbidden to be closely involved (or interfere) in politics or to use their office to advance their personal preferences. The state, in other words, was gen-erally non-malleable vis-à-vis officials’ private agendas. In this sense, the autonomy of the official class, from the Governor downwards, vis-à-vis both society and the state was moderated by legal-rational bureaucratic norms and the rule of law. Also, the gradual introduction of a more or less open, somewhat democratic political arena and a representative-legislative sphere from the 1920s onward, as noted, meant that the autonomy of the colonial state -- and its officials -- was moderated by their malleability by societal forces.

The British may have been laying the foundation for Burma to emerge event-ually as a liberal-democratic polity -- a dominion of the empire over which the sun never sets. As Taylor notes, the British "for reasons associated with imperial policy in India, had begun to transfer power and authority to Burmese politicians in a rather major way under the last pre-war constitution", based on a system of parliamentary rule and politics.¹⁶⁴ The sunset in fact came quite rapidly, however. The colonial state disappeared at the point of Japanese bayonets in 1942. Nonetheless, when Burma gained its independence, the new rulers -- the moderate Thakins, led by Thakin Aung San -- chose to install a democratic state, based on the system of parl-iamentary politics and government. Democracy lasted for a decade, until the AFPFL state was displaced in 1962 by the authoritarian order dominated by the military and its chief, General Ne Win.


A Decade of Democracy: The State of the Moderate Thakins, 1948-1958
Power in post-war Burma did not devolve into the hands of the "old time" pol-iticians -- U Saw, Sir Paw Tun, U Ba Pe, U Pu, and so on -- who had been "trained" and were experienced in the ways of parliamentary politics and governance.¹⁶⁵ It fell into the hands of the Thakins. They were politicized young men who emerged in the 1930s as extreme and impatient nationalists. They were the product of a time when the world was gripped by a severe economic depression; when anti-capitalist sentiments were as strong as nationalist ones, not only in the world’s peripheral regions but in Europe itself. In Burma, the global depression resulted in the only peasant rebellion of any note in colonial Burma -- the rebellion of Saya San, now hailed as the foremost Bama national hero.¹⁶⁶

The Thakins -- from whose ranks sprang the military Thakins -- were mostly from the "educated" (pyin-nya-tat) sub-stratum. They were inspired by Saya San, by "past glories" of the Bama lu-myo (race),¹⁶⁷ and as well by Karl Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, and other Western figures. They were politicized, too, by the dismal prospect of employment in the lower ranks of the colonial bureaucracy, serving the imperial power as school-teachers and clerks.¹⁶⁸ It was these men who shaped Burma’s destiny. To name only the most prominent, they included Aung San (later, Bogyoke or General), Maung Nu, Than Tun, Soe, Ba Swe, Kyaw Nyein, Shu Maung (later General Ne Win), and Aung Gyi, Tin Pe, and Maung Maung (all top military brass in later years).

They called themselves thakin ("lord" or "master," a form of address used towards Europeans). They belonged to the Dobama Asi-Ayone, the Dobama, "We Bama," movement.¹⁶⁹ Their platform was independence, and their version of nation-alism rested on negative sentiments -- anti-White, anti-foreign, anti-capitalist. They rejected liberal democracy, espoused a foggy notion of "national" socialism, and held to a vague vision of a "golden past" that depicted the Bama as a conquering master race (lu-myo), which dominated and ruled over other lesser lu-myo, until it was defeated by the British, and its kingdom disembered. |

As it was spelled out in 1941 by Aung San (then an obscure supplicant in Tokyo), the Dobama creed aspired to "a strong state ... [as] in Germany and Italy, [of] only one nation, one state, one party, one leader." It would be a state without parliamentary opposition or the "nonsense of individualism".¹⁷⁰ In Josef Silverstein’s view, Aung San later repudiated the authoritarian statism attributed to him.¹⁷¹ None-theless, like their nationalists counterparts in Indonesia, most Thakins retained the authoritarian, or non-democratic, notion of state-society order. The Communist Thakins (Than Tun and Soe), for example, aspired to an authoritarian Leninist-Stalinist state. The AFPFL itself, consisting mostly of moderate Thakins, aspired to rule for forty years.¹⁷² The military Thakins under Ne Win established a military-"socialist" authoritarian state between 1962 and 1988. Ne Win’s successors are now attempting to establish an authoritarian "capitalist" state.

Despite its authoritarian, unitary orientation, the Dobama was actually a loose-ly structured political front, composed of shifting cliques and factions, headed by leaders with diverse and changing beliefs.¹⁷³ Among its leaders, some in time became "moderate socialists," like Thakin, later General, Aung San, and Thakins Nu (later U Nu), Ba Swe, and Kyaw Nyein, to name a few. Then there were staunch Marxists like Thakins Soe, Than Tun, Ba Hein, and Thein Pe Myint, along with rightwing nationalists such as Thakins Ba Sein, Tun Ok, and Shu Maung (Ne Win). The result was much jockeying for dominance among Thakin groups and leaders.

The fortunes of war and politics determined that some became ministers, "national" leaders, and high officials, first in the Japanese-sponsored "independent state" during the war years (1943-1945), and later in post-independence Burma. Leftist-communist Thakins, lost out in the power struggle on the eve of independen-ce. They ended up in the jungle, fighting as rebels and revolutionaries. The military Thakins commanded assorted "armies" during the war,¹⁷⁴ and some of them later became senior officers in the Tatmadaw, and some of them and their "successors", have been in command also of the state since 1962.

The AFPFL emerged after the war as a formidable force. It was another broad nationalist front organized by Aung San against the Japanese, which he dominated. Its members established themselves in the structures of power (left vacant after the British retreat from Burma). At the time, Aung San also commanded the loyalty of military Thakins, some of whom the British had incorporated into the reformed Burma Army. He also headed a militia grouping, the Pyithu-Yebaw (PVO: People’s Volunteers Organization), which was in effect the AFPFL’s private army.¹⁷⁵

It was fortunate for the AFPFL that Japan delivered a death blow to British power and prestige in Asia. When combined with the war’s realignment of global power, Britain’s parlous postwar condition, and the decision to quit India, there was virtually no possibility of the British reimposing their rule. The years 1945 to 1947, then, were a time to choose a successor to the colonial power.¹⁷⁶ Thanks to Aung San’s pragmatism and political acumen,¹⁷⁷ the war-weakened condition of other elite segments,¹⁷⁸ and the undesirability of the left-communist Thakin alternative, the transfer of power to Aung San and moderate Thakin forces was all but inevitable. The transfer of power was orderly and peaceful, in contrast to events in Indonesia which will be discussed in the next chapter.

As "moderate socialists," AFPFL powerholders, like "socialists" counterparts in Indonesia, opted for democracy and parliamentary government, while retaining their socialist goals. Beset by erstwhile comrades -- communist Thakins and their allies -- contesting their rule, and not strong enough to stand alone, they had no choice but to take the accommodative -- i.e., a more politically and ethnically inclus-ive -- path chosen by Aung San (assassinated in July 1947). It was led this time by U Nu as Prime Minister.¹⁷⁹ The AFPFL state was thus out of step with the more "revolutionary," ethnocentric, and authoritarian creed of the Dobama movement, to which the military Thakins (or Thakins in the armed forces) clung.

The state’s structure was decentralized to a degree in the wake of the 1947 Panglong Agreement signed by Aung San and the Yawnghwe chaofa (prince), Sao Shwe Thaike, and later the first Union President, along with other non-Bama leaders. In keeping with the 1948 Constitution, based in part on the Panglong Agreement, non-Bama states enjoyed some political-administrative autonomy. Each non-Bama state had its own government, legislature, and its own administrative setup. In this sense, the AFPFL state was ethnically inclusive in that the rights and autonomy of larger non-Bama ethnic segment were recognized and respected, in principle at least.

The recognition of ethnic diversity, or ethnic inclusiveness, went against the military's notion of national unity which is one that is based on, as discussed in the theoretical chapters, the notion of "one-ness", or the absence of conflicts (and diss-ent, or even differences). Likewise, the military in Burma subscribed to the Dobama's version of national unity premised upon the claimed historical dominance or hegemony of the Bama race ("nation"), or the submission of all non-Bama segments to the notion of nationhood based almost exclusively on Bama ethnicity.

However, although the non-Bama states were "autonomous", they were subordinated to the government of Bama Pri-Ma (the Bama mother-state), which was concurrently the government of the union: there did not exist what one might describe as a federal government. The quasi-federal/semi-unitary arrangement was a compromise that satisfied the moderate Thakins’ need to claim they had "recovered" all territories which were "lost" when the British administered the non-Bama areas as separate entities.¹⁸⁰ On the down side, however, it did not satisfy in particular the military Thakin, who viewed the quasi-federal arrangement as detrimental to unity. At the same time, many non-Bama saw the "union" as a Bama ploy to "Burmanize" them and destroy their "national" identity.¹⁸¹

On the whole, the AFPFL state was, in the way power was organized, democ-ratic in form and to a degree in content. It sought the institutional separation of the state, government, and powerholders, and kept open the political arena. There were many different and competing power centres, interest groups, and political parties, with one of the latter, the AFPFL, winning elections and exercising power. The ability of AFPFL leaders, especially U Nu, to maintain this complex state-society configuration in a more or less democratic environment for about fourteen years, despite extreme praetorian conditions and regular rebellions, is impressive.¹⁸²

To appreciate just how impressive, it should be noted that on assuming power, the AFPFL was everywhere challenged, and severely wounded by the loss of its most vital asset, Aung San. His death weakened the AFPFL’s cohesion as his charisma had cemented it. With Aung San went the AFPFL’s hold on the majority of the milit-ary Thakins, both in the armed forces and in the party’s private "army," the Pyithu Yebaw (PVO). Thakin officers in three of the four Bama "class" battalions¹⁸³ defected to the communist Thakins, as did the PVOs. An exception was Ne Win’s Fourth Burma Rifles, which included Maung Maung, Aung Gyi, Tin Pe, Sein Lwin, "Em-I" Tin Oo,¹⁸⁴ and others.

The AFPFL’s weakness emboldened communist Thakins to rebel soon after independence; their revolt lasted until the collapse of communism in the late 1980s.¹⁸⁵ In turn, the many tasks which confronted AFPFL power-holders as rulers -- such as combating communism (or specifically, fending off communist Thakin rivals), keep-ing the country together, extending the reach of the state, repulsing foreign intruders, and so on -- resulted not only in their growing dependence on the military, but also in the expansion of the military's role and, correspondingly, its importance and political leverage. It also reinforced the military's perception of itself as an indispensible guardian-protector and savior of the state. This suggests the strengthening of factors that encourage, as discussed in the preliminary chapters, the military's propensity not only to intervene in politics, but also to "stay on", as theoretically discussed, to re-fashion the state and take on the task of ruling.

Next to the communist Thakins, the most serious challenge to the AFPFL state and power-holders was posed by the Karen. In 1948, a year after independence, the fragile truce patched up with the Karen following the wartime BIA massacres of Karens dissolved into Karen-Bama clashes. The "loyal" Karen who fought against the Japanese had, in a sense, won the war. But in its aftermath, they were faced with the prospect of being ruled, from their standpoint, by "deceitful" Bama -- by those who had betrayed not only the British, but their own Japanese mentors as well. Their position was desperate. U Nu and Saw Ba U-Gyi, the top Karen leader, tried to defuse the tension, but they could not prevent the Karen rebellion, which continues at a reduced level still today.¹⁸⁶ The Karen were joined in revolt by the Mon, Pa-O, and Kachin mutineers.

Compounding the AFPFL’s problems with internal challenges, Chiang Kai-Shek’s defeat in China brought KMT (Kuomintang) units flooding into Shan State. There they laid the foundations for a multi-billion-dollar, global opium-heroin business which still flourishes. Worse still, the military units dispatched into Shan State to counter the KMT ended up committing atrocities and sparking a Shan upris-ing in the late 1950s.¹⁸⁷

Despite these many problems and internal wars, however, the AFPFL continued to respect the parameters of parliamentary politics. They held and won elections in 1952 and 1956. The 1956 vote was especially pivotal: the opposition, the National Unity Front (NUF, a moderate leftist front) won 45 percent of the popular vote and 47 seats.¹⁸⁸ The NUF’s electoral gains convinced significant "underground" elements that parliament was a viable venue of politics. In 1958, responding to U Nu’s "Arms for Democracy" program, they abandoned the armed struggle.¹⁸⁹ By most indicators, it seemed democracy in Burma was well on the way to consolidation.

On the other hand, although the AFPFL Thakin were more or less able to main-tain a parliamentary, quasi-federal order until 1962, the commitment to democratic process that they displayed was rather ambiguous. First, the AFPFL openly aspired to rule for forty years. They stacked the administrative apparatus, the military, state agencies, and even municipal bodies with their supporters and clients. This under-mined the state’s autonomy from key power-holders, undercut the institutional integ-rity of the bureaucracy, and eroded democratic norms. Second, the AFPFL interfered in the politics of the non-Bama states. Opposition leaders and groups received help from the AFPFL, the military, or its intelligence services (MIS, the Military Intelligence Service).¹⁹⁰ The military was particularly active not only in "mopping up" rebels, but in imposing its presence, via "pacificat-ion" marches into the rural areas to intimidate the non-Bama populace ("showing the flag", so to speak).

It also established garrisons, set up check-points, and in many areas took direct control of administrative functions. For example, in areas put under martial law, the military set up a hierarchy of Security and Administrative Committees (SACs), head-ed by the local military commander. The heads of the SACs, being military officers, held the balance of power vis-à-vis local civil officers, and reported to their superiors in the military chain of command. Thus, in the non-Bama states, the power exercised by military commanders over-shadowed those vested in local officers, and even the constitutionally vested powers of the non-Bama state governments.¹⁹¹ Moreover, MIS personnel busied themselves with "rooting" out "secessionists", and terrorized the non-Bama populace, so as to dissuade them from even harboring the idea of secession. The policy of "Burmanization" -- the central pillar of which was making Burmese (the Bama language) the official language -- predictably caused non-Bama much distress. It gave rise to suspicions that the "Bama" government had a hidden agenda aimed at cultural genocide. The apparent unwillingness or inability of the AFPFL to put a stop to atrocities by the Bama military further fuelled these suspicions.

Third, the AFPFL’s professed adherence to democracy was undermined by its socialist statism, as this was proclaimed in the 1947 Sorrento Villa Conference, en-shrined in the 1948 Constitution, and reiterated in the 1952 Pyidawtha Plan.¹⁹² AFPFL socialism resulted in what one American analyst called a "socialist economy" based on grandiose, ideologically-driven planning.¹⁹³ The implementation of some socialist policies, the rhetoric portraying capitalism and capitalists as evil, strength-ened the hegemony of this left-socialist world view. It kept alive the Dobama’s creed of national-socialist authoritarianism, especially among military Thakins who, like soldiers in Indonesia and Thailand, were mistrustful of "disorderly" democratic polit-ics. The attitude of the military toward democratic politics in Burma reflects the observations made in the theoretical framework concerning the military's distrust of democratic politics, and its view of it as disruptive of national unity and encouraged social conflict.