Since Myanmar’s general election in November last year, the Burmese military had refused to rule out a coup if its complaints about election fraud were not addressed. In a series of predawn raids in Naypyidaw on Monday, soldiers detained Burmese State Counsellor Aung San Suu Kyi and Burmese President Win Myint, along with other National League for Democracy (NLD) party leaders.
Soon after, the military announced that it was imposing a one-year state of emergency, making Burmese Vice President Myint Swe acting president, who then handed power to Senior General Aung Hlaing. The news shook the world.
Myanmar’s democratization process began on Aug. 8, 1988, with the 8888 uprising, about the same time as in Taiwan, where things started happening after the lifting of martial law on July 14, 1987. Several decades later, there is a vast difference in the outcome of the movements in the two countries.
While Myanmar is back under military control and the Burmese public continues to struggle with poverty, Taiwan has completed its transition to democracy and per capita income has exceeded US$30,000, while the nation’s COVID-19 pandemic prevention record is the envy of the world, while Germany is lobbying the Ministry of Economic Affairs to help address a chip shortage in its auto industry, thanks to the status of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co.
Aung San Suu Kyi returned to Myanmar to care for her ailing mother in 1988, and joined the 8888 movement. The protests were suppressed and Aung San Suu Kyi was placed under house arrest, where she remained until 2010. In 2012, she led the NLD’s successful bid in the 2012 parliamentary by-elections, winning 43 of 45 vacant seats. In 2015, she led the party to a landslide victory, winning 86 percent of the seats.
Despite its hold on government power, the NLD has been unable to rid itself of military control from behind the scenes. Beginning in 2016, Myanmar became mired in accusations of ethnic cleansing against the Rohingya ethnic group in Rakhine State, the seeds of which were sown during British colonial rule and then exacerbated by the military.
Aung San Suu Kyi’s image was severely damaged, and there were calls to revoke the Nobel Peace Prize and human rights awards she had received.
The NLD won another landslide victory in last year’s general election, but the military claimed that there was massive vote fraud and demanded that the election be invalidated. When the request was rejected by the Burmese Union Election Commission, the military staged a coup, taking Myanmar back to square one.
The collapse of Myanmar’s democratization process follows the failure of the Arab Spring democratization movements in north Africa, once again showing the difficulty of democratization and highlighting the exceptional achievement of Taiwan’s quiet revolution.
Taiwan’s democratic achievement under former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) is a miracle from an international perspective. Democracy developed almost without Taiwanese noticing it, and it was just taken for granted that every country would become democratic.
However, in most cases democracy is either the result of bloody battles or a cyclical state in a constant revolution.
Compared with Myanmar, Taiwan has been fortunate. If Taiwanese do not want to squander the heritage of Lee, all should value democracy and work together to further deepen and consolidate it, and use democratic procedures to resolve disagreements and move forward in unity.
Tommy Lin is president of the Formosa Republican Association.
Translated by Perry Svensson
In a summer of intense political maneuvering, Taiwanese, whose democratic vibrancy is a constant rebuke to Beijing’s authoritarianism, delivered a powerful verdict not on China, but on their own political leaders. Two high-profile recall campaigns, driven by the ruling party against its opposition, collapsed in failure. It was a clear signal that after months of bitter confrontation, the Taiwanese public is demanding a shift from perpetual campaign mode to the hard work of governing. For Washington and other world capitals, this is more than a distant political drama. The stability of Taiwan is vital, as it serves as a key player
Yesterday’s recall and referendum votes garnered mixed results for the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). All seven of the KMT lawmakers up for a recall survived the vote, and by a convincing margin of, on average, 35 percent agreeing versus 65 percent disagreeing. However, the referendum sponsored by the KMT and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) on restarting the operation of the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant in Pingtung County failed. Despite three times more “yes” votes than “no,” voter turnout fell short of the threshold. The nation needs energy stability, especially with the complex international security situation and significant challenges regarding
Much like the first round on July 26, Saturday’s second wave of recall elections — this time targeting seven Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers — also failed. With all 31 KMT legislators who faced recall this summer secure in their posts, the mass recall campaign has come to an end. The outcome was unsurprising. Last month’s across-the-board defeats had already dealt a heavy blow to the morale of recall advocates and the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), while bolstering the confidence of the KMT and its ally the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP). It seemed a foregone conclusion that recalls would falter, as
The fallout from the mass recalls and the referendum on restarting the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant continues to monopolize the news. The general consensus is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has been bloodied and found wanting, and is in need of reflection and a course correction if it is to avoid electoral defeat. The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has not emerged unscathed, either, but has the opportunity of making a relatively clean break. That depends on who the party on Oct. 18 picks to replace outgoing KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫). What is certain is that, with the dust settling
RSS