Aung San Suu Kyi and democratic development

Asia watch by Lynn Ockersz

A democratic icon - this is the image the West has been projecting over the years of Aung San Suu Kyi - now turned 60 - the veritable symbol of Myanmarese democratic aspirations.

The several years Suu Kyi has spent either behind bars or under house arrest, under the searing scrutiny of Myanmar's generals, tends to reinforce this Western - bolstered image of the pro-democracy leader but for the perceptive citizenry of the Third World, Suu Kyi would be respected-among other reasons-for her incisive analysis of corruption and its causes.

It is not power that corrupts, Suu Kyi once said, while reflecting on the now almost clichetic, "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely", pronouncement.

Rather it is fear. "It is not power that corrupts but fear. Fear of losing power corrupts those who wield it and fear of the scourge of power corrupts those who are subject to it", Suu Kyi went on to explain in an important corrective to the oft-quoted, popular conception of corruption.

The failed nature of the democratic experiment in a substantial part of the Third World in particular and the pronounced self-aggrandizing tendency and parasitical nature of Third World political elites, have proved Suu Kyi correct.

As has been often noted in this column, the mere installation of electoral politics in the Third World has failed to completely democratize the polities usually brought under this label.

Rather, it is increasing people's participation - in the real sense of the term - at all levels of governance and decision making which helps transform these states into thriving democracies. In other words, people's power is the most effective corrective to power abuse by Third World political elites.

However, wherever people's power or collective decision-making by the people fails to materialize, the parasitical tentacles of power elites tend to sharpen themselves and acquire a better grasp of a country's wealth at the expense of the common people.

Therefore, it is vitally important that movements for democracy in the Third World envisage strong checks and balances against power-aggrandizing tendencies of ruling elites.

In the absence of such checks, ruling elites would only arrogate unto themselves more and more dictatorial powers because fear of losing power, steadily corrupts those who happen to be in positions of authority.

This holds true for many states in this region, with the exception of probably India. Meanwhile, power elites' stay at the top is facilitated by sections of the ruled who fear "the scourge of power" or are enamoured of it. Needless to say, relations of this kind are facilitated by patron-client ties between ruling politicians and sections of the people.

Employment opportunities, favours of numerous kinds, perks and privileges are some of the blandishments that keep the people in subjection to rulers. Fear of losing or of not coming by these blandishments is itself a source of corruption among the people. It compels the people to even selflessly serve their power elites and rulers.

Therefore, among other things, Suu Kyi needs to be given the credit for having perceptively analyzed the root causes of Third World democratic underdevelopment. It is not very clear whether the liberal democratic sections of the West have these contributions in mind when they claim democratic-icon status for Suu Kyi.

However, sections of the West possess the unenviable record of having supported and kept in power illiberal, authoritarian regimes which paid scant or no regard for democratic rights.

If their commitment to Suu Kyi's cause is to be taken seriously, they would need to engage more earnestly with regimes of this kind and ensure their steady democratization. Iraq and Afghanistan could be considered two emerging test cases for the West.

To the extent to which these states are democratized and rendered vibrantly multicultural, the West's support of Suu Kyi could be considered genuine.