Democracy in Nepal is healthy and alive. It has problems, but it is beating those problems-- says Aung San Suu Kyi, the Novel Peace Laureate and veteran Burmese leader, in a keynote delivered in Kathmandu on Saturday.
"At one time Burma was a shining example of Asia. But over the years of military dictatorship our country became poor and the spirit of our people diminished"
"In my country we have been trying to develop politically, as well as socially and economically. I have told the prime minister of Nepal—and many former prime ministers... By the way, I have met more former prime ministers in last 24 hours than I have met in my life (laughs)—that the democracy in Nepal is healthy and alive. It has problems, but it is beating those problems. And I have great admiration for the Nepalese Army for its professionalism. I want the military in Burma to be truly professional as well"
"Nepal is a shining example of a small country which has had to cope with very, very large problems, but it has managed because, I believe, Nepal has learned the one most important lesson of democratic politics: They have learned to accept the idea of negotiated compromise. There are those who think of compromise as a failure. To the contrary, it is a strength. It shows the great strength of Nepalese that they have been to achieve negotiated compromises and are about to achieve another milestone in the form of a constitution that will be acceptable to the majority of its people"
"We humans are made up of more than just physical particles. That is the human spirit that gives us life and light and I believe we can move forward so that all of us can work together to keep this spirit strong and always progressing"
Today, I would like to concentrate on the future of social democracy. Social democracy assumes that the state is responsible for the social cause, that the government, in other words, has the responsibility to build a society that is good and healthy. But in this day and age, you have to look at the basics. What exactly do you mean by democracy? And what do you mean by government? The foundation stone of democracy is respect for the people. To me, respect for the people means not just recognizing their rights, but also their responsibilities. It does not mean respect if you simply think of people’s rights. If you think of them as well-developed human beings, you have to think about their responsibilities as well.
This is particularly important for societies that are emerging from authoritarianism. Nepal, Burma and Chile share a history of authoritarian governments which suppressed the rights of the people for many decades. As we emerge from a stage where the government is in control of everything, we have to decide exactly what the role of the government is. In my own country, in 2010 there were elections for the first time in 20 years. In the election before that, my party had won an overwhelming majority but we were never allowed to call the Constituent Assembly into session. Thus the 2010 election was the first step towards emerging from military dictatorship. Our people have lived for decades in a society where the government decides everything. But even so, our people realized they didn’t just have rights, they had responsibilities too. This is something we should never lose sight of.
As we tried to develop as a democratic society, I would try to remind those who wanted to see Burma as a successful democracy that government is not just a political idea, but it is a culture. Thus building a democratic culture is of paramount importance. And it is not something we can achieve overnight.
One of the dangers of emerging democracies is that in the name of development, certain democratic rights might be overlooked. I would like to define development, very simply, as an enhancement of the human spirit. This is not an ideal, but this to me is a very practical recipe for healthy progress. If we are to progress in a healthy way, the spirit of the people must be enhanced. Why do we want to get rid of poverty? Because poverty hampers the development of the human spirit. Thus if we want to achieve genuine development, we should consider whether or not this development will enhance the human spirit, or whether it will subjugate and diminish it.
At one time Burma was a shining example of Asia. But over the years of military dictatorship our country became poor and the spirit of our people diminished. Our people lost faith in themselves and in our ability to make our way forward in the world. This is because for many decades our people were made to feel that they were not capable of carving out their own destiny; that their fate should be placed at the hands of those who ruled. And yet those who were ruling were exactly like we were, they had emerged from the same country and from the same society. They were born into the same values and ideals as we had been born into. But because they had managed to carve out careers that gave them some kind of ascendency, they started thinking that they alone were capable of deciding how our country should develop.
This is the idea that we have been fighting against. We do not believe that violence will enhance the human spirit. It takes us away from the path that leads towards healthy progress. For many decades we have had armed struggles in Burma. We are a country of many ethnic nationalities. In order to build a strong, united nation out of these differences we have to understand the basic needs of all humanity, not just the needs of one ethnic group or one particular dominant group. We must consider the needs of all our peoples and all our peoples must be given equal respect and equal responsibilities.
Equity is at the foundation of all true, good relationships. You cannot be friends with those who are not your equals. You can be masters, you can be disciples, you can be colleagues, or acquaintances, but to be friends, there has to be the fundamental foundation of equality. Unless we can achieve a system in our country where all can feel they are equals, we will not be able to forge a nation by establishing unity in diversity. Social democracy is about inclusiveness. It is about society and society embraces all political views, all religions, all races, and all different ways of thinking, and increasingly, we have to consider where the society ends and government begins.
Government is a part of the society. And I think increasingly this has been recognized. These days, civil society organizations play a very, very important role in the politics of any democratic society. The government alone should not make decisions that have ramifications for the future of the country. The people must be able to take part in decision-making, not just through periodic elections, but through day to day involvement in the development of the country. Inclusiveness is thus one of the most important ingredients of genuine social democracy. A democracy which is run entirely by the government is a contradiction in terms. A true democracy must be linked to the people on an everyday basis.
In our country we still have to cope with the idea of making our people understand what democratic government means. I said earlier that democracy is a culture, but even before we get there, we have to think about what democratic government means. Everybody understands that the three main pillars of a democratic government are the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. But in practical terms, many people, when they think of a government, think only of the executive. That is because the executive has the kind of powers that the other pillars of the government do not possess. This particular problem is enhanced in our country because we have not had either a judiciary or a legislature for about fifteen years, until the elections of 2010. Only then the legislature emerged, and a kind of a judiciary, not an independent one, because the present constitution places the legislature firmly under the domination of the executive.
Today, we have to struggle with the idea that the executive alone is the government. Because of the years of authoritarianism, our people think of the government in terms of the executive, in terms of the president, ministers and so on. But government means the legislature and the judiciary as well. The governance of a country is much broader than the executive’s decisions. For this reason we see social democracy today far more inclusive than it has been in the past.
We need to expand the idea of government. We need to expand government to be more inclusive, to embrace the aspirations of the social groups and civil society organizations. This way we will be able to achieve a balance between a government that governs and a government that nurtures. We want a government that nurtures so that the people are increasingly able to take an active part in the governance, in a responsible way.
It has been said that democracy is necessary because of the weaknesses of human beings. So we have to balance their strengths and weaknesses in finding a kind of social democracy that will work best for the future of our world. These days we can no longer think only in terms of nations, we have to think in terms of the whole world. The fact that today we are here in Nepal, among all the other countries that have struggled to free themselves of authoritarian rule, clearly shows that we cannot think of our nations as isolate entities anymore. We are a part of this globe, whether we like it or not. And we have to make sure that we play our rightful role in this world.
In my country we have been trying to develop politically, as well as socially and economically. I have told the prime minister of Nepal—and many former prime ministers... By the way, I have met more former prime ministers in last 24 hours than I have met in my life (laughs)—that the democracy in Nepal is healthy and alive. It has problems, but it is beating those problems. And I have great admiration for the Nepalese Army for its professionalism. I want the military in Burma to be truly professional as well. That is one of the necessary steps we should take for my country to emerge as a true social democracy, not just in name, not just on the surface, but with the kind of depth that will be able to gain the confidence of the people and address their needs.
Nepal is a shining example of a small country which has had to cope with very, very large problems, but it has managed because, I believe, Nepal has learned the one most important lesson of democratic politics: They have learned to accept the idea of negotiated compromise. There are those who think of compromise as a failure. To the contrary, it is a strength. It shows the great strength of Nepalese that they have been to achieve negotiated compromises and are about to achieve another milestone in the form of a constitution that will be acceptable to the majority of its people.
We are also trying to get a constitution that will be acceptable to the majority of our people. And I hope that those in our country who are not enthusiastic about genuine reform will be able to look to you and learn from you that negotiated compromise is not only honorable, it is praiseworthy and it is practical. It is a practical way forward.
Again, I believe in democracy and I believe in non-violence. I believe in both because I believe in the ability of humanity to raise themselves from a stage of hatred and ignorance to a stage where they can be more generous and inclusive and where they can enhance the spirit as we go along.
In the end, we humans are made up of more than just physical particles. That is the human spirit that gives us life and light and I believe we can move forward so that all of us can work together to keep this spirit strong and always progressing.
###
--------------------------------------------------------
"In my country we have been trying to develop politically, as well as socially and economically. I have told the prime minister of Nepal—and many former prime ministers... By the way, I have met more former prime ministers in last 24 hours than I have met in my life (laughs)—that the democracy in Nepal is healthy and alive. It has problems, but it is beating those problems. And I have great admiration for the Nepalese Army for its professionalism. I want the military in Burma to be truly professional as well"
"Nepal is a shining example of a small country which has had to cope with very, very large problems, but it has managed because, I believe, Nepal has learned the one most important lesson of democratic politics: They have learned to accept the idea of negotiated compromise. There are those who think of compromise as a failure. To the contrary, it is a strength. It shows the great strength of Nepalese that they have been to achieve negotiated compromises and are about to achieve another milestone in the form of a constitution that will be acceptable to the majority of its people"
"We humans are made up of more than just physical particles. That is the human spirit that gives us life and light and I believe we can move forward so that all of us can work together to keep this spirit strong and always progressing"
--------------------------------------------------------
The following is the text of her keynote ("Future of Social Democracy) delivered at a function at Hyatt Regency, Kathmandu to mark the birth centinary of the late BP Koirala, Nepal's first democratically elected prime minister. The event was jointly organized by BP Memorial Trust and BP Thought Academy.
Today, I would like to concentrate on the future of social democracy. Social democracy assumes that the state is responsible for the social cause, that the government, in other words, has the responsibility to build a society that is good and healthy. But in this day and age, you have to look at the basics. What exactly do you mean by democracy? And what do you mean by government? The foundation stone of democracy is respect for the people. To me, respect for the people means not just recognizing their rights, but also their responsibilities. It does not mean respect if you simply think of people’s rights. If you think of them as well-developed human beings, you have to think about their responsibilities as well.
This is particularly important for societies that are emerging from authoritarianism. Nepal, Burma and Chile share a history of authoritarian governments which suppressed the rights of the people for many decades. As we emerge from a stage where the government is in control of everything, we have to decide exactly what the role of the government is. In my own country, in 2010 there were elections for the first time in 20 years. In the election before that, my party had won an overwhelming majority but we were never allowed to call the Constituent Assembly into session. Thus the 2010 election was the first step towards emerging from military dictatorship. Our people have lived for decades in a society where the government decides everything. But even so, our people realized they didn’t just have rights, they had responsibilities too. This is something we should never lose sight of.
As we tried to develop as a democratic society, I would try to remind those who wanted to see Burma as a successful democracy that government is not just a political idea, but it is a culture. Thus building a democratic culture is of paramount importance. And it is not something we can achieve overnight.
One of the dangers of emerging democracies is that in the name of development, certain democratic rights might be overlooked. I would like to define development, very simply, as an enhancement of the human spirit. This is not an ideal, but this to me is a very practical recipe for healthy progress. If we are to progress in a healthy way, the spirit of the people must be enhanced. Why do we want to get rid of poverty? Because poverty hampers the development of the human spirit. Thus if we want to achieve genuine development, we should consider whether or not this development will enhance the human spirit, or whether it will subjugate and diminish it.
At one time Burma was a shining example of Asia. But over the years of military dictatorship our country became poor and the spirit of our people diminished. Our people lost faith in themselves and in our ability to make our way forward in the world. This is because for many decades our people were made to feel that they were not capable of carving out their own destiny; that their fate should be placed at the hands of those who ruled. And yet those who were ruling were exactly like we were, they had emerged from the same country and from the same society. They were born into the same values and ideals as we had been born into. But because they had managed to carve out careers that gave them some kind of ascendency, they started thinking that they alone were capable of deciding how our country should develop.
This is the idea that we have been fighting against. We do not believe that violence will enhance the human spirit. It takes us away from the path that leads towards healthy progress. For many decades we have had armed struggles in Burma. We are a country of many ethnic nationalities. In order to build a strong, united nation out of these differences we have to understand the basic needs of all humanity, not just the needs of one ethnic group or one particular dominant group. We must consider the needs of all our peoples and all our peoples must be given equal respect and equal responsibilities.
Equity is at the foundation of all true, good relationships. You cannot be friends with those who are not your equals. You can be masters, you can be disciples, you can be colleagues, or acquaintances, but to be friends, there has to be the fundamental foundation of equality. Unless we can achieve a system in our country where all can feel they are equals, we will not be able to forge a nation by establishing unity in diversity. Social democracy is about inclusiveness. It is about society and society embraces all political views, all religions, all races, and all different ways of thinking, and increasingly, we have to consider where the society ends and government begins.
Government is a part of the society. And I think increasingly this has been recognized. These days, civil society organizations play a very, very important role in the politics of any democratic society. The government alone should not make decisions that have ramifications for the future of the country. The people must be able to take part in decision-making, not just through periodic elections, but through day to day involvement in the development of the country. Inclusiveness is thus one of the most important ingredients of genuine social democracy. A democracy which is run entirely by the government is a contradiction in terms. A true democracy must be linked to the people on an everyday basis.
In our country we still have to cope with the idea of making our people understand what democratic government means. I said earlier that democracy is a culture, but even before we get there, we have to think about what democratic government means. Everybody understands that the three main pillars of a democratic government are the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. But in practical terms, many people, when they think of a government, think only of the executive. That is because the executive has the kind of powers that the other pillars of the government do not possess. This particular problem is enhanced in our country because we have not had either a judiciary or a legislature for about fifteen years, until the elections of 2010. Only then the legislature emerged, and a kind of a judiciary, not an independent one, because the present constitution places the legislature firmly under the domination of the executive.
Today, we have to struggle with the idea that the executive alone is the government. Because of the years of authoritarianism, our people think of the government in terms of the executive, in terms of the president, ministers and so on. But government means the legislature and the judiciary as well. The governance of a country is much broader than the executive’s decisions. For this reason we see social democracy today far more inclusive than it has been in the past.
We need to expand the idea of government. We need to expand government to be more inclusive, to embrace the aspirations of the social groups and civil society organizations. This way we will be able to achieve a balance between a government that governs and a government that nurtures. We want a government that nurtures so that the people are increasingly able to take an active part in the governance, in a responsible way.
It has been said that democracy is necessary because of the weaknesses of human beings. So we have to balance their strengths and weaknesses in finding a kind of social democracy that will work best for the future of our world. These days we can no longer think only in terms of nations, we have to think in terms of the whole world. The fact that today we are here in Nepal, among all the other countries that have struggled to free themselves of authoritarian rule, clearly shows that we cannot think of our nations as isolate entities anymore. We are a part of this globe, whether we like it or not. And we have to make sure that we play our rightful role in this world.
In my country we have been trying to develop politically, as well as socially and economically. I have told the prime minister of Nepal—and many former prime ministers... By the way, I have met more former prime ministers in last 24 hours than I have met in my life (laughs)—that the democracy in Nepal is healthy and alive. It has problems, but it is beating those problems. And I have great admiration for the Nepalese Army for its professionalism. I want the military in Burma to be truly professional as well. That is one of the necessary steps we should take for my country to emerge as a true social democracy, not just in name, not just on the surface, but with the kind of depth that will be able to gain the confidence of the people and address their needs.
Nepal is a shining example of a small country which has had to cope with very, very large problems, but it has managed because, I believe, Nepal has learned the one most important lesson of democratic politics: They have learned to accept the idea of negotiated compromise. There are those who think of compromise as a failure. To the contrary, it is a strength. It shows the great strength of Nepalese that they have been to achieve negotiated compromises and are about to achieve another milestone in the form of a constitution that will be acceptable to the majority of its people.
We are also trying to get a constitution that will be acceptable to the majority of our people. And I hope that those in our country who are not enthusiastic about genuine reform will be able to look to you and learn from you that negotiated compromise is not only honorable, it is praiseworthy and it is practical. It is a practical way forward.
Again, I believe in democracy and I believe in non-violence. I believe in both because I believe in the ability of humanity to raise themselves from a stage of hatred and ignorance to a stage where they can be more generous and inclusive and where they can enhance the spirit as we go along.
In the end, we humans are made up of more than just physical particles. That is the human spirit that gives us life and light and I believe we can move forward so that all of us can work together to keep this spirit strong and always progressing.
###
No comments:
Post a Comment