
The Burmese government's announcement that it plans to hold a referendum on the new constitution in May and general elections in 2010, paving the way for a transition from a totalitarian to a democratic regime, is even more unimaginable. Burma is a country where democracy has been alienated since 1962.
On Saturday, Burmese state radio and television broadcast the surprising news of a proposed date for a nationwide referendum and announced a time frame for general elections, signalling the end of the military government that refused to hand over power to the winner of the 1990 election - the National League for Democracy (NLD) led by Aung San Suu Kyi. Since then Suu Kyi has been in and out of house arrest and barred from the National Convention, which was first convened in 1993.
Why has the international community reacted to Burma's announcement of a referendum and election with such indifference? Some of Burma's neighbours rushed to congratulate the country, regarding its decision as "a positive political development". Beyond the diplomatic niceties, however, the same neighbours also remarked on the dangers of Burma's ongoing political process, which has remained exclusive to certain power groups, especially those in the military.
Therefore, the process of inclusiveness, whereby all political factions are supposed to partake in the move towards democracy, is still open to scepticism. Political camps, including the NLD and ethnic minority groups, are being left out. The Burmese military government has failed, deliberately or otherwise, to reconcile with the opposition. It has continued to disregard engaging in dialogue as being key to a political breakthrough.
At the heart of this failure lies the state's reluctance to surrender its political power. As a result, Burma has slipped into a political and economic coma. The regime has been notorious for its appalling human-rights record. The national economy is on the verge of collapse, leaving most Burmese in deep poverty and some near starvation.
This latest political move must also be viewed with suspicion because of the overflowing level of confidence within the Burmese leadership regarding a successful political transition. The military government is so confident of the constitution being approved in the referendum that it has already set a date for national elections in 2010.
Nyan Win, spokesman of the NLD, said the party was astounded by the announcement. "I am surprised that they set a date for an election when no one has seen the final version of the proposed constitution."
The government-appointed commission in charge of drafting the new constitution consists mainly of military men or those with connections to the junta. As Nyan Win emphasised, "This one-sided proposal means that the military junta will continue its rule in Burma".
One of the main points in the constitution is the guarantee that the military's role in politics will continue. Having been a domineering force in national politics for almost 50 years, the military has made it known that it will not give up power easily. Moreover, the fact that certain segments of the international community have acknowledged the necessity of the military's involvement in the country's political transition has strengthened its political ambitions because it can now consider itself an indispensable factor in the political development process.
But the reality is that the military is dispensable. Little attention is paid to the able men in the Burmese bureaucracy. These civil servants have been behind major administrative works involving infrastructure, transportation and education as well as foreign affairs while top military leaders are indulging themselves with power politics in the jungle of Naypyidaw.
This explains why there are rumours that General Than Shwe, the chairman of the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC), is badly informed on the real situation in his country. Apparently, he does not believe that the Burmese are living in the harsh conditions alleged by foreign governments. This ignorance of Than Shwe is, of course, highly debatable. He must at least have some idea of how much money from the sale of lucrative gas and oil has passed through his hands and how little has been left for the people.
The junta's unexpected announcement on Saturday could signify an attempt to delay the political transition rather than to speed up the democratisation process even when the dates of the referendum and election have been fixed.
The junta is using the new political timeline to prolong its political well-being, covering itself with the empty promise that the country's military era has come to an end. Unfortunately, this era will not end unless Suu Kyi and the ethnic minorities are part of the political change.
The decision to announce early elections could also be linked to international politics. Burma has tried hard to alleviate intense sanctions from the global community, especially after its crackdown on street protesters in September last year. In the past few months, Western powers have called for harsher sanctions against cronies and supporters of the military regime. Economic punishments, which have long been a cause of severe hardship for ordinary Burmese, are now being felt by the top echelons in the military regime.
China is also believed to be behind the sudden Burmese inclination towards democracy. But Beijing is not necessarily playing the good guy here. Acting in its own interests, it has recently embarked on a mission to eliminate negative publicity ahead of the Beijing Olympics in August, including the downplaying of the Burmese issue.
A democratic Burma in 2010? It is still highly inconceivable. Pretentiously democratic states in the region, and in Burma's own neighbourhood, exemplify how democracy, no matter how precious, could be an unwanted asset for certain power-holders.
Dr Pavin Chachavalpongpun is a visiting research fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies in Singapore. The views expressed here are his own.
Dr Pavin Chachavalpongpun
The Nation