Letter from Burma (No. 31) by Aung San Suu Kyi

Mainichi Daily News
Monday, June 24, 1996

LIFE IS SELDOM DULL FOR THOSE WHO DISAGREE
"A Dissident's Life"

Life is seldom dull for dissidents in Burma. I just looked up "dissident" in three different dictionaries and the definition I like best is "one who disagrees with the aims and procedures of the government." That about sums up the position of the National League for Democracy (NLD) and others working for democracy in Burma: We disagree with the present aims and procedures of the State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC). Agreeing to disagree is a prerogative only of those who live under a democratic system. Under an authoritarian regime, disagreeing can be seen as a crime. This makes life for us rather difficult. Sometimes dangerous. But certainly not dull.

The main issue on which we disagree with SLORC is the matter of promises. We hold that a promise given to the nation should be honored, not cast aside with a shrug and a sneer when "it no longer suits" them. When the military regime took over power in September 1988 it announced that it had no intention of governing the country for a long period. It would assume the responsibility of bringing genuine multiparty democracy to Burma and power would be transferred to the party that proved victorious in "free and fair elections." The elections of May 1990 were hailed as one of the freest and fairest ever and the NLD won 82 percent of the seats. As this was not the result SLORC had expected it decided to forget its earlier promise and brought out Notification 1/90 (another nice Orwellian touch), according to which the job of the elected representatives was merely to draw up a state constitution. But once the NLD and other political parties had been made to sign an undertaking to abide by this notification, SLORC proceeded to organize a National Convention in which less than one fifth of the delegates were elected representatives of the people. The duty of the convention was to endorse the basic principles of the state constitution which had been laid down by the authorities without reference to public sentiment.

It has been recognized by successive resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly that the will of the people of Burma expressed through the elections of 1990 remains valid. In May, on the sixth anniversary of the elections, the NLD decided to organize a conference of its elected representatives. This would have been a simple enough matter in countries where political parties are allowed to operate as genuine political organizations. Not so in Burma. Even the day to day running of an NLD office requires perseverance, patience, ingenuity and cool nerves. To begin with, a landlord who rents out office space to the NLD is told that his house or apartment could be sealed off or confiscated at any time the authorities consider that the activities of the party justify such a move. Thus finding a place to use as a party office is the first hurdle that has to be overcome, giving members of the NLD much practice in political education and friendly persuasion. In some places the NLD was obliged to move its office several times because of pressure exerted on landlords. In others the NLD was made to shift its office from a main road to a back street so its presence would not be so obvious.

The presence of an NLD office is generally made known by its signboard. When political parties were allowed to register with the Multi-Party Elections Commission in 1988 they were also allowed to put up party signboards on the exterior walls or perimeter of their offices. But after a few months during which bright red and white NLD signboards blossomed all over Burma from big cities to forgotten little hamlets deep in the countryside, it was announced that no party signboards should be put up in offices at the village and ward level. The reason given was that a multiplicity of party signs in small villages and wards would lead to clashes among members of the respective parties. This was unconvincing as no such clashes had taken place and in many little villages and wards the NLD was the only party with an office and a signboard. We discussed the matter with the commission and a compromise was reached. Signboards would be allowed in village and ward offices which had already put them up, or sent in applications to put them up before, if I remember the date correctly, Dec. 16, 1988.

But there are still villages and wards where the decision of the commission has been ignored by the local authorities and NLD offices are still continuing the struggle to be allowed to put up signboards outside their usually very modest premises. There are places where NLD offices have been told to reduce the size of their signboards. There have been cases where local authorities have objected to NLD offices putting back signboards that had been temporarily removed for renovation. There have been instances of local authorities forcing NLD offices to remove their signboards; recently in some towns in the Irrawaddy Division, members of the local Red Cross and the Union Solidarity and Development Association have joined in these operations. Where else in the world has the matter of a party signboard turned into an open-ended saga?

This article is one of a yearlong series of letters, the Japanese translation of which appears in the Mainichi Shimbun the same day, or the previous day in some areas.