Burmese Junta in Favor of Sequentialism

Written By Nyan Myo Aung

Sequentialism means establishing the rule-of-law and state-building
should be completed before the democratic transition. Sequencing
promoters argue that rush transition to democracy could drive the
state into chaotic situation. According to sequentialism, the opposition
and political activists in some authoritarian countries should wait
till the incumbent autocrats have finished the preconditions said to
be necessary to stabilize democratic transition; as mentioned above,
rule-of- law and state-building.

Some scholars like Thomas Carothers do not accept this kind of argument.
He said that there is inherent tension between autocrats and the rule of law,
and revealed his suspicion that every autocrat could be the state-builder.
But for the autocrats, military or civilian in some countries, sequentialism
seems to be a good defender in maintaining their status quo and justifying
their rule. Burmese junta-created word “discipline-flourishing democracy”
seems to resonate with sequentialism. The junta used to argue that
maintaining law and order, and creating peace and development are
the first priorities before the democratic transition is started. Hence, the
military still needs to play a leading role in Burmese politics. That point
is even constitutionally prescribed.

The junta has, intentionally or unintentionally, mistaken in assuming
that maintaining law and order is the same work with establishing the
rule of law. Actually, to establish the rule of law, the executive power
has to be constrained to a certain extent in which the freedom of
expression is guaranteed by an independent judiciary. In Burmese
junta’s view, establishing the rule of law (or maintaining law and order)
means repression and detainment of the political opponents. They are
assumed as the men who are posting the danger to the public law and
order, which in turn is not favorable to the peace and development of
the country. Thus I appreciate Thomas Carothers’s argument that there
is inherent tension between the autocrats and the rule of law. It is
doubtful the military junta (including the military-turned-civilian
government) could establish the rule of law as a precondition for
democracy.

And Burmese junta used to promotes themselves as the state-builders
in the books of history. Here state-building means, according to
Francis Fukuyama who borrowed it from Max Weber’s definition,
the monopoly of the legitimate use of violence and providing the
services to the people effectively and efficiently. Junta’s way of
promoting themselves as state-builders is obvious in the state-owned
presses in which building of the bridges and the irrigation channels,
and fighting against the insurgents (depicting fighting the
insurgents is protecting the independence of the state) are
repeatedly expressed in words and displayed in photos. But
decades-long history shows that junta’s way of disarming the
ethnic-armed groups (to monopolize the use of violence) by
means of violence is not good in the long run. In the aspect
of governing as well, there is extensive corruption among
the government officials. The bureaucracy could not provide
the services necessary to the people.

Sometimes pro-military-turned-civilian-government columnists
used to promote the classical modernization theory in the press
in which they argued that there should be certain level of
economic growth, as one of the preconditions, before the country
is democratic. They sometimes go to the extremes arguing
“development first, and democracy last.” And they tried to
introduce the Singapore’s development model to the people.
The point they fail to recognize is that there seems to be no
Lee Kuan Yew in Burmese military circles. Junta seems to be more
interested in extracting the resources for their personal profits,
rather than modernizing the country through industrialization
for long-term public benefits.

In conclusion, sequentialism is unhelpful in Burma case because
the Burmese Junta, decadeslong power-holder, could not fulfill the
preconditions mentioned by sequencing promoters. There is
inherent tension between the junta and the rule of law, state-building,
and economic growth. Mostly they go to the opposite direction of
the preconditions making the country worse. It would be better to
start democratic transition as fast as possible rather than waiting for the
Golden Age the junta promises to bring to the people. It could be no
worse than the rule of the junta.

Ref; 1.Thomas Carothers, “The Sequencing Fallacy”
2. Francis Fukuyama, “Liberalism versus State-Building”
3. Thomas Carothers, “Misunderstanding Gradualism”
4. I am sorry I could not mention the articles of pro-sequentialism exactly because of
inadequate time.