To which socio-political doctrine should Burma subscribe?

by Khin Zaw
Saturday, 05 December 2009 11:55

Mizzima News – The choice of political and economic system can spell either a state’s rise or demise. However, previous miscues do not preclude a country from altering course – hopefully for the better. Beset by decades of political and economic mismanagement, Burma – post-2010 – may have another chance to identify the correct system of governance to get the country back on its feet.

The post-World War I world initially provided five types of political-economic systems:

I. Liberal democracy and an independent market characterized by privately controlled business (American style)
II. Market approach operated under a liberal democracy management system (European style)
III. Directed democracy and market (Asian Tiger style)
IV. Liberal democracy combined with a planned economy (applied in India)
V. Planned economy under communism (former USSR style)

With the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, several countries opted to steer well clear of a planned economy, while maintaining a single-party political apparatus. Consequently, a sixth doctrine of state governance was added to the list: a single party and market economy system. China, Laos and Vietnam can all still be seen to be availing themselves of this sixth option – while Russia, following the end to the Cold War, switched from type 5 to type 3 and India gave up on type 4 in favor of type 1.

However, since the onset of the global recession in 2008, the American system – type 1 – has become increasingly unpopular, with type two gaining favor. It is, thus, types 2 and 6 (a single party and market economy system) that presently entertain the greatest interest.

But it is a seventh system that may ultimately hold the most hope for the modern 21st century nation-state: a (cautiously directed) market economy in conjunction with social democracy.

Social democracy should not be confused with socialist democracy. Social democracy is a multi-party system. Moreover, it is not like liberal democracy – based on private freedom, in that it prefers to instead prioritize social justice within society. As such, it attempts to reconcile a market economy with the societal demands of a democratic polity.

Scandinavian countries have realized wide-ranging success through the implementation of this last system. There is even speculation that China may join the ranks of those adopting this latest edition to the pantheon of global systems.

But what does this mean for the possibility of Burma’s political and economic direction?

Since gaining independence from Britain, Burma can be said to have traveled through three distinct phases: 1) from 1948 to 1962 the country experimented with type 2 under the leadership of Prime Minister U Nu; 2) from 1962 to 1988, epitomized by the rule of the Burma Socialist Program Party, type 5 was the flavor of choice, and; 3) from 1988 to the present, type 6 has won over the country’s military leaders in their drive to address economic degradation without loosening the reigns of political authority.

Nonetheless, following the 2010 general election there is a distinct possibility that Burma may find itself adopting more of a type 3 approach. But, could it even be possible for Burma to shift instead to an identity more closely associated with type 7? And if so, there is yet hope that Burma can quickly realize its true potential as a modern, industrialized country.

However, if a type 7 scenario is to come to fruition there must be elections in 2010. And if next year’s election is rejected, Burmese politics – far from radically realigning itself – will remain anchored in its present position. Hence, as the country’s political elite ponder their involvement and role in the 2010 elections, they should seriously consider what impact their actions or non-actions could have on the prospect of reorienting the Burmese state.