REPLY TO ERIC'S EMAIL OF 3RD SEPTEMBER 2004

Date:4th September 2004


1) (a) Alternative democracy movement - whether it is on the right track?
            The PDP is not an alternative democracy movement. It is a democracy
            party which preceded the NLD and was founded by Premier U Nu the
            legitimate Prime Minister who was overthrown by the military coup of
            Ne Win in 1962.

            Or

     (b) Heading down a branch line to nowhere?

            The PDP is now the leading political force in Burma commanding wide    
            support.

2) They are fond of attacking Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. Why? We do not attack. We  
      state facts which question her political achievements as is the right in politics to
      hold parties and leaders to accountability of their stewardship.

      (a) They think she is not good enough. 

            The NLD leader is a legitimate subject to challenge what has she
            achieved in the 14 years? The price of political failure in politics is exit
            from politics.

      (b) They can do better.
            The PDP believes that working in cooperation with other parties, it
            can achieve success.

     (c) In cooperation with the junta of course.

            The PDP is demanding for the military to handover power to a civilian
            interim government and not to the PDP itself alone unlike the NLD.

3) They do not think that the junta will give them short shrift once they have served   
      its purpose.

      Because the PDP is not asking to work with the SPDC military junta, it cannot    
      therefore dictate or influence the PDP objectives.

4) Alleged foggy statements and errors of fact?

      Eric has failed to say what they are? It is unacceptable to make allegations about   
      errors without saying what those errors are.

5) (a) Eric says that if one accepts political change not based on the results of
            the 1990s elections, upon what is to be based? 

      (b) If one disallows the continuing legal validity of the 1990s elections, the
            democratic movement (NLD) is likely to lose much of its international
            support, moral, or otherwise.

6) Eric's question is very revealing:

      (a) "How was the NLD supposed to succeed in the face of the
             determination to hang on to power of those holding the heavy weapons?

      (b) How could the PDP have succeeded in its place?

      (c) It is obvious that Eric has not read or had access to the PDP's twin pronged 
             liberation strategy of:

             1. Political struggle
             2. Armed struggle

7)        (a)        Eric admits that the NLD has short comings unlike many NLD   
                         supporters who deny any weaknesses in its stance against the
                          military.

             (b)        The NLD Government in Exile has been an utter failure and its  
                         achievements are virtually none and has managed to antagonise  
                         supporters in the West about the comfortable life-style of the
                         ministers compared to oppressed people in Burma.

             (c)        Political accountability: None. A political party and its leadership
                         must admit to its mistakes and failures. To pretend otherwise, does 
                         not do credit to its credibility.

8) Surely Eric is being disingenuous by posing a rhetorical question after two terms          
      what?"

      If as Eric professes to be or implies to suggest that he supports democratic  
      principles of governance, he must know that election mandates are finite - usually
      for a specific term of years, after which one is required to renew their mandate
      from the people on its record of achievements so as to give the electorate the
      opportunity to decide whether to renew its mandate or not. Because the illegal
      military junta was and is still in power, the NLD's 1990 Election Mandate does not
      mean that it is a continuing one nor can it be assumed that it is perpetual. It is a
      fundamental principle of democracy that political parties and their leaders have to
      submit themselves periodically to account for their stewardship during the
      Election Mandate to the people. The NLD cannot claim an exception to this  
      principle which is why we are saying that the NLD has authoritarian and  
      dictatorship tendencies. If it really believed in democracy it should not be afraid of
      submitting itself to a free and fair general Election supervised by the UN, the EU
      and the ASEAN so that the people can judge its record against those other 
      democratic parties. Can Eric tell us what the NLD has achieved over the past 14
      years for people to continue to support it? Has the illegal military regime lost any
      sleep or made any concessions to it? It is not enough to shout that the military
      handover the Mandate to the NLD because it won the Elections in 1990, it has to
      show concrete and substantial viable political achievements. The only
      achievements are personal ones for the Government in exile - whose comfortable
      lifestyle of its ministers and families have prospered beyond the wildest dreams of
      many Burmese inside Burma and in the refugee camps in Thailand. The
     Government in Exile has been incompetent, self-seeking and have failed its leader
     to deliver any credible achievements which is why many Western Governments
     and people have become disillusioned with the NLD. This is also why many 
     supporters of the NLD have called for changes in the leadership in key areas of the
     party because they are not satisfied with the performance of the party and the 
     Govt in Exile over the past 14 years!
 
     Eric continues to argue that "But this overlooks the huge difficulties of effecting 
     this in the face of the controls imposed by a totalitarian military police state".
     True, there are difficulties which would face any group or political party in such
     circumstances, but it is up to these groups to have innovative and imaginative
     effective strategies on how to maximise external international support and weld it
     to the internal support so as to create a critical mass of rebellion which will make
     it difficult for the military to suppress it. This avenue was open to the NLD but
     chose not to take it. It is a question of judgement and political competence of the 
     leaders.

     The other route is that of the PDP which it has pursued and is pursuing a dual
     strategy of political action and liberation armed struggle which has achieved
     results. The PDP leaders and the armed wing are prepared to pay the ultimate
     price of death in the fight for the liberation of our Motherland from the illegal
     military regime so as to bring about multiparty democracy which will lead to a fair
     and free General Election in which all parties will compete for votes. This is the
     major difference between the PDP and the NLD, the latter wants power handed to
     it on a plate notwithstanding its spent election mandate. Eric is very mistaken to
     think that the NLD has a valid legal mandate. Its mandate is spent and it has 
     none.

     Eric is very wrong to allege that the PDP is "a little opportunistic" without
     expounding why this is the case. He appears to suggest or imply that the only
     political party should be the NLD and no other parties should exist! This is an
     undemocratic authoritarian tendency which Eric should be careful and discard it.
     Campaigning for democracy by definition implies there is going to be more than
     one political party which will be competing for political support from the people and
     let the party with the best political programme succeed.

     May we now draw Eric's attention to political organisations in the Western
     Countries and briefly discuss how they operate in democratic societies. We shall
     begin with the USA where there will be General Election in November, 2004 in
     which President Bush the current President after four years in power will submit
     himself again before the electorate to seek a renewal of his Election Mandate 
     which has just expired. President Bush's Republican Party and the Democratic
     Party are fighting a very energetic general election based on their respective
     political programmes which they are putting before the electorate to choose which 
     party is best suited to govern. Why does Eric want Burma to be an exception to
     have one party despite its failure to achieve the removal of the military, should not
     be challenged by other political parties? We must remind Eric that the PDP is 
     older than the NLD.

     If we were to accept the logic of Eric's implied argument "How was NLD supposed
     to succeed in the face of the determination to hang on to power of those holding
     the heavy weapon?" then it is right for us to argue that the election mandate 
     should be returned to the PDP because it was Premier U Nu's party which was     
     deposed by Gen. Ne Win's military coup in 1962. After all, Premier U Nu's general
     election mandate cannot be said to have expired, because of the illegal military 
     rule which followed.

     Similarly Mr.Tony Blair will be submitting himself to the British people in a general
     election in 2005 to renew his Election Mandate which would have expired by then. 
     Eric, please be reasonable, we believe that we could agree on Mandate renewal.

Central Committee
Parliamentary Democracy Party (Burma)
GHQ (Liberated Area)
E-mail address: pdp-office@yahoo.com;  Web page: www.pdp-burma.net
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subj: FW: Fwd: [Democracy_forBurma] Zar Ni, the PDP, and UK.org
Date: 03/09/2004 06:43:59 GMT Daylight Time
From: http://us.f513.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=aung_siri@hotmail.com
To: http://us.f513.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=emlmpdp@aol.com
Sent from the Internet


Dear All

They say you can judge a person by the company
he keeps.

UK.org is very fond of Zar Ni and of the
Parliamentary Democratic Party (PDP).

Each individual must judge for him/herself as to
whether this alternative democracy movement is
on the right track, or heading down a branch line
to nowhere. 

They have one notable common trait :  they are
fond of attacking DASSK.  They think she is not
good enough and that they can do better. 
In cooperation with the junta, of course.

They do not believe the junta will give them short
shrift once they have served its purpose. 

To help people judge for themselves, here below
is a recent UK.org posting lauding the PDP, and,
below that, an interview with Bo Aung Din of the
PDP, last December, followed by my comments
made at the time.

Regards,
Eric

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear All,

While one cannot fault much of what is said here, it
seems--but perhaps I am mistaken, and am subject to
correction on this matter--that there may be one or two
foggy statements and errors of fact in the responses of
Bo Aung Din.

If one accepts political change which is not based on
the results of the 1990s elections, upon what is it to
be based? and who decides this?  If one disallows the
continuing LEGAL validity of the 1990 elections, the
democratic movement is likely to lose much of the
international support, moral and otherwise, that it
currently enjoys--inadequate as this is.

>"It is now 13 years since the NLD won the general
>election on a programme to get rid of the military junta
>and bring back democracy. It has failed in both tasks."

How was the NLD supposed to succeed in the face of the
determination to hang on to power of those holding the
heavy weapons?  How would the PDP have succeeded in its
place?  Surely, the present acrobatics by Than Shwe's
wily puppet-master are in large measure due to
international pressures brought about by the
uncompromising stance of the NLD in association with its
partners on the borders and overseas?

This is not to say the NLD's handling is necessarily
beyond all criticism.  It could have been advantageous
if, in conjunction with the CRPP, it had long ago drawn
up a schedule (sorry, a "road-map") for the progressive
transfer of power, even before the ill-fated
"confidence-building" talks that led to Depayin.  This
road-map could then have been touted round the world by
the government-in-exile, the NCGUB, and other bodies
having ready access to an international audience, who
exist for that sort of purpose.  Any SPDC proposals
would thus have been clearly seen as counter-proposals.

>"[The PDP's] approach is realistic. It does not seek to
>humiliate the military nor seek revenge."

--They have this in common with the NLD, I believe.

>"The NLD's mandate has been spent after two terms --
>eight years. There is certainly no mandate for the NLD
>now. It is a manifestation of its dictatorship
>tendencies to continue to claim a mandate. That the NLD
>is allowed to get away with it bodes ill for Burma."

After two terms of what?  --Imprisonment?  DASSK has
constantly called for tripartite dialogue.  Doubtless it
would have been better if much greater consultation had
occurred between the various interests within Burma
calling for political change, not to mention better
communications with the outside movement.  But this
overlooks the huge difficulties of effecting this in the
face of the controls imposed by a totalitarian military-
police state.

>"It is unfair to say that, just because the NLD has
>failed, the PDP will not succeed. The policies and
>political programmes of the PDP are totally different
>from those of the NLD. We are, first and foremost,
>committed to multiparty democracy politics and are
>willing and ready to engage in competitive general
>elections by submitting ourselves and our political
>programme before the electorate."

And the NLD is not?

The tone of some of these statements strike one as being
more than a little opportunistic: 'political' in the
worst sense of the word.  And very unhelpful at the
present time and in the present circumstances.

Regards,
Eric

UK.org

 

 

4th.September 2004

 

BLIND ALLEY'S:

 

Comments posted by UK.org, under, “SELF DESTRUCTING” 29TH. August 2004

 

The following is an interpretation and, we believe, a misguided one, of said comment.   

We would therefore, like to share his opinions with all, and of course, add our comment.

It must be said, that this reply to comments, was not shared with us who posted it, or offered to the readers of our normal listing, but was distributed to the below, as if not wanting to OPENLY discuss, but to alienate?  It appears more so, considering UK.org’s request to subscribe to this particular listserve, was rejected.  Was this because we may offer alternate ideas outside of their own locked minds?  Does it also mean, that it will reject the PDP’s voice, I hope it does, because it will show more evidence as to one minded efforts to prolong the agony of the people of Burma!

 

Response Posted by ericbj@club-internet.fr        03/09/04 to:
http://us.f513.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=democracy_forburma@yahoogroups.com.au

Sub: Fwd: [Democracy_forBurma] Zarf Ni, the PDP, and UK.org
Date: 03/09/2004 06:28:23 GMT Daylight Time 

Also below, is the PDP’s response:

 

Mr. Eric begins:

Dear All

They say you can judge a person by the company
he keeps.

UK.org is very fond of Zarf Ni and of the
Parliamentary Democratic Party (PDP).

Each individual must judge for him/herself as to
whether this alternative democracy movement is
on the right track, or heading down a branch line
to nowhere. 


They have one notable common trait :  they are
fond of attacking DASSK.  They think she is not
good enough and that they can do better. 
In cooperation with the junta, of course.  As a supporter of the Karen cause, does this person now condemn them also, for talking to the SPDC, or at least in their efforts to resolve conflict, and that political freedom to criticise those, who, for over 14 years have achieved nothing politically, is not a democratic right?

They do not believe the junta will give them short
shrift once they have served its purpose.  End of quote:

--------------------------------------------------------

UK.org response:

 

Firstly, most of Burma’s political fight, if it can be referred to as that, has come from exiles living abroad.  Much debate has risen from it.  Although these exiles are playing a vital role in placing Burma on the world map, it must be considered also, among the Burmese exiles, that many if not all of them, have no plans to return and live in Burma.  They may have friends and family still trapped there, but when democracy does free them, and it will come, they are not expected to give up a life which has given them a life style to which they have become accustom.  Yes they will visit, and yes they will help those they know, but to live permantly, now they have foreign nationality is doubtful, and would make it difficult for them to cast their vote in an election?   Under this premiss, much of the debate, which has become entrenched in a one sided, tunnel vision approach, and, at times, invited extreme emotional  responses, where exile is against exile, should be reviewed, and directed, at finding ways to help people inside Burma, instead of the ego of those who are free?

This entails study, of all strategies, other than just one party whose track record has proved ineffective, an attitude which does nothing what so ever, for the cause of democracy, and certainly lacks benefit for those trapped inside Burma. 

 

If those fortunate enough to live abroad, who took advantage of education, and other, really want to bring hope to their countrymen & women, they should show the world, that they are following the rules and principles, of a democratic system, and in doing so, show their willingness, to engage in learning and understanding, their own political history, past and present, and not simply from 1988 onwards, also, that of Burma’s close neighbours, and the influences they play, or could play under different circumstances.  Evidence shows in many cases, that this knowledge is absent, to which, it has had a profound effect, as to the level of advancement made by the NLD!   This led to the resurrection of the PDP, where it has been working confidently on behalf of those millions of people, trapped inside Burma, and along its borders, and not wasting time trying to please the few exiles who will never return.  This being a political fact, and not an attack, as some will no doubt scream, in which case, proving all that’s just been said!  If outsiders have never heard of the PDP, or any of its core members, again, is evidence, proving the lack of serious concern of those who live in free societies, of important facts relating to Burma, to which its future is dependant!  Those locked inside Burma have no means to learn, other than word of mouth, loud voices with access to all manner of information have no excuse!

 -----------------

The telling of truths, voicing all opinions, and actions, which could decisively determine the level of democracy, and how it may be achieved, and, whether or not certain individuals are seen as stumbling blocks, is surly paramount now to Burma, more so than ever?  As an earlier org comment suggested, “it's whom, is in the driving seat, that decides  dictatorship or  democracy, and too many people want to be showered with praise and reward, and can only obtain it by drawing from ASSK, as many of their comments are 50% of NLD & Suu Kyi, promotion, and 50% repetitive, but non productive chitter chatter, mostly dependant on expectations from  the world community, and not from their own input of solutions, drawn through fear of becoming alienated from the club, and becoming a nobody. That status was  already achieved  when they left others to do the fighting, and to die in their place.   

Recompense can be achieved however, by showing the people inside Burma, who are still fighting and dying, that, exile status, derived from benefiting Burma, and not for self interest.  Who, out of all exiles, can stand proud, and convincingly state, that their exile was to help those trapped inside, and not for personal interest, and if so, indicate how and what they have achieved, and to what level have the people benefited from it?  The people inside the country, would love dearly to know their answers! 

 

Democracies, can only work, or be born from, opportunities, allowing all those who offer alternate strategy, the freedom to confront opposition, more so when that opposition has failed to move in any direction for a decade plus?  Asking sardonic questions as to “how does the PDP intend to win, where others lost” is not the question drawn from curiosity, but a statement of concern, over their own failures!

 

For any level of democratic bureaucracy to become workable as a government, productive action must be born from it.  Suggesting that progress is seen because more people are aware of Burma, due to ASSK's publicity, is both naive and aimless, when asked, "What has it achieved for the people inside Burma"?

 

We look back to comments of 10 years ago, and relive the voices of meetings, all those years, and still the same old stuff!  It makes us, and the world onlookers, wonder just who democracies enemy really is, the regime, or the very people who shout freedom whilst thousands of miles away from the hardship and blood, hysterically drowning any sensible debate, and losing all view of reality, which is holding back the movement!  The SPDC obviously see it this way, as the comment, if understood correctly, and so kindly re-posted, in Yahoo groups au, indicates.

 ------------------------------------

An imposed assessment of the PDP for example, reveals, no less, of blindness to Burma's history, regarded it as irrelevant, or indeed, as many, tunnel versioned political agenda's are proven; only interested in their own view.  This one way thinking, accompanied with encouraged, juvenile pop star hysteria, actually diverts democratic principles from becoming a weapon against tyranny, and is a tool of dictatorships, and/or one party states  ,

 

As Zarni was quoted as part of this debate, let us continue with it.  Unlike the NLD, under ASSK, Zarni's attempt, for example, has not, been discussed, let alone tested, therefore cannot be marked as invalid, it does not matter how bizarre or risky it may seem.  This does not place us in bed with Zarni, as indicated, but reveals our open mind -ness to at least try, to enter it into the discussion. where it would be up to him to convince otherwise.   

 

The phrase,” the world needs revolution or war, every 25 years”, was made by HG Wells. Today’s approach is thus:

 

Democracy, by definition, can hold many differences according to historical and cultural differences, does it not?  Democracy, is only a word people associate with freedom of self determination, is it not, and the very nature of its practical appliance will, eventually force it to complete the full circle, reverting back to an institutional state, but on the second time around however, the demands calling for more stringent measures to combat disorder, will actually come from the masses, who long ago, cried out for the very freedom and self determination, which today in many democracies, has turned into a free for all anarchy, leading to more crime and violence, and in return, calls for tougher restraints on the people!    

 

There is no such thing as complete freedom, even for those who rule under a democracy. The masses, and government, are still governed by laws, designed to keep order and prevent minorities of extremism which may threaten government.  Complete freedom, where each individual will demand, that his/her feelings must be heard, outside of orderly proceedings, is witnessed today in parts of the world, including Europe.  This can and does lead to anarchy, and disorder, allowing the strong minority to cause mayhem, by stirring up emotions, creating hysterical expectations, as a means to control the masses, and place them selves at the helm of power!  

 

Britain show examples of how to contain possible extremism from becoming explosive, it simply creates another political party, giving the portrayal of sympathising with their grudges.  Now, that is democracy working, albeit, cunningly, but that’s politics, and it quells the fire of discontent.  That is not to say, which would be naïve to believe, that more forceful means, are not being applied out of sight from public view! 

 

The NLD is in the process of, or at least going through the motions, of rearranging its central committee, the reasons vary, but what ever they are, it is inevitable that ASSK's role will be reduced for practical, if not internal reasons, a rather obvious move, albeit late, by any political standard?  The world looks upon her as a 'symbol' of democracy, which was the major objective of the world's publicity,  and was not promoted as a leader of, Even so, no amount of publicity on her behalf will direct the world to bring down the regime, and world governments never intended too.  

 

The NLD, stand a better chance of succeeding, only when seen to work along side other political party’s, displaying their democratic principles to the world in the process, more so if they recognise the election mandate given to Prime Minister U Nu, who was removed from office and imprisoned and denied his mandate. In democratic legal terms, if people wish to continue on about the NLD’s mandate, they should consider that this hypocritical stance could back fire on them.  If consideration is made toward the validity of Prime Minister U Nu’s election, and it’s over throw by General Ne Win, the 1990 elections could be judged as void, because as an elected government, U Nu was the only legal representative of the people, therefore, only his government had the authority to call an election!  While the rapid creation of party’s took place, almost over night, the PDP was fighting and dying in the jungles of Burma!  

 

We believe, the core of the NLD itself, have always been aware of this, and after 14 years of waiting, and wasted energy, the NLD, are committing political suicide if they continue on regardless, waiting for the regime to crash under the pressure of the world, because it will not.  When new and young faces are promoted, within the NLD, either through inheritance or merit, they would have already been targeted by the regime, and eventually the NLD will sink below the waves, or become a puppet, unless it stands proud, and embraces other contributions, now!

 

By firing up political opposition, in a land where emotional prominence was ripe, and directed in only one direction, and where most other 'political voices', and I use the term lightly, were affiliated to, political disruption was very easy for the regime, and the NLD was at the brink of total implosion.     

How ever, the objectionable fiery democratic opposition offered by the PDP, did, and it has since, worked very well toward beefing up dialogue, bringing to the surface, voices which would never have opened up. If anything, it has been instrumental in securing ASSK's status as a symbol of democracy, if but only, people could see it.  It is the not, recognising these and other, signs, which make many voices speaking as political analysts and/or tacticians/strategists, extremely transparent, and it’s the people locked inside Burma, who must bear the brunt of incompetence.

 

The PDP.

We feel sure, that the PDP, would applaud if the NLD were allowed to take office, as an interim government, while new elections are planned, they are not, after all, enemies, simply a democratic opposition party, who believe that their strategy is for the good of Burma, and are of course prepared to campaign in an effort to convince the people of Burma, just that!

 

 

 

Steve Thomas

Senior Editor 

 

On behalf of;

Members Collective 0Comment:

 

UK.org.