|
|
For the past 47 years Burma has been in the grip of a military dictatorship. The theoretical policy of the ruling clique changed at about the time of the short-lived 1988 Revolution from state socialism to free enterprise. But the reality has remained much the same: political repression, ethnic persecution, gross violations of human rights, and economic control by senior military figures in favour of themselves and their civilian business partners.
The change of economic policy from isolationist pseudo-socialism to the encouragement of foreign investment has radically increased Burma's export earnings, especially since 2001. But while the few well-connected businessmen and their military patrons have grown rich, the bulk of the population has become increasingly poor. Malnutrition and hardship have increased, with falling standards of living and public services, as well as general insecurity caused by absence of the rule of law.
This seemingly paradoxical situation of rising national income and falling living standards has been caused chiefly by the fact that a large part of the economy is either directly or indirectly (through kick-backs, expropriation etc) in the hands of the ruling generals. They are using the country's wealth to support an unproductive force of some 500,000 men increasingly equipped with expensive modern technology and with plans, it is suspected, for nuclear warheads and delivery systems, calculated to put a further strain on the economy.
Compounding the disproportionate military expenditure, there is endemic corruption in the form of bribes; extortion of ‘taxes’ conjured up by army officers and other officials to line their own pockets as well as to curry favour with their superiors; reduced competition when favoured businessmen are granted effective monopolies in return for a share of their inflated profits; high inflation from printing too many bank-notes; legal uncertainties which create a poor business climate; insecurity of land-tenure; disruption of agriculture by forced labour at critical times of year and also by forcing farmers to plant inappropriate crops. These are just some of the absurdities that are pulling Burma down.
While corruption can exist under any form of government, the nature of Burma's misrule actually encourages this, so that the country is rated as one of the three worst cases in the world. There can be no hope of redressing the situation as long as those responsible cannot be called to account, because at present they are answerable to no-one but themselves.
If the ruling generals really think that Burma needs a strong army, they should have built it on the basis of a strong economy and a sentiment of national solidarity. They could then have made do with a small, professional, standing army, and a large reserve of citizen-soldiers capable of rapid mobilisation in time of emergency. A whole people in arms is a great deterrent to a potential invader. Instead, hungry for personal power, they opted for a huge and costly standing army, a reflection of their fixation on personal power at the expense of all else.
And what if government spending were to be progressively switched from the military budget to public services and to promoting commercial and industrial development?
Burma's considerable wealth in natural resources which are much in demand internationally, and its geographical location athwart potentially important international trade routes (undeveloped by the regime) suggests it would not be difficult for redundant military personnel to find well-paid employment in booming commercial fields and in expanding public services that any responsible government can be expected to develop. When compared with many neighbouring countries, there is much catching-up to do.
Change will benefit ex-military personnel, the people, and Burma.