The newly elected Aung San Suu Kyi now faces a huge weight of expectations, but analysts say the inspirational dissident might have to temper her grand political goals and deal with bread-and-butter issues.
After decades in the political wilderness, the Nobel laureate finds herself in the position of being co-opted to legitimize the reform agenda and political system of the new military-backed government.
The veteran activist will have to sit down with her former foes to find ways to help farmers, promote investment and develop a country struggling to emerge from five decades of economic mismanagement under the military.
“Whether a minister in charge of a portfolio or a frustrated backbencher, her room for political maneuvering is smaller than as an unattached opponent,” Hong Kong University assistant professor Renaud Egreteau said.
Even if Aung San Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy (NLD) party wins all 44 seats it contested, it cannot challenge the huge legislative majority enjoyed by the military-backed Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP).
In addition, a quarter of the seats in parliament are reserved for unelected military officials, but for the first time after Sunday’s by-elections, the NLD leader will have a voice in the legislature, where lawmakers have for the past year been debating topics ranging from the national budget to healthcare and Chinese energy projects.
A Myanmar expert said Aung San Suu Kyi will have to be pragmatic and buckle down to tackling everyday issues, rather than the grander themes of democracy and constitutional change she championed in her campaign speeches.
“The current USDP parliament is quite energetic. They have done an amazing job in the past year, but their agenda is day-to-day, much more bread-and-butter issues that are the concern of the general population,” said Aung Naing Oo, an analyst at the Vahu Development Institute, a think tank in Thailand. “Aung San Suu Kyi has to talk rhetoric during the election campaign, but what she has said are not quite the day-to-day issues. The most important issue in our country is the economy and Aung San Suu Kyi doesn’t have economic credentials.”
One big question remains: Whether Aung San Suu Kyi could take on some kind of government role.
In January, presidential adviser Nay Zin Latt said there was “a possibility she will be appointed to the government.”
However, no other officials have since raised that possibility and Aung San Suu Kyi on Friday last week said she had no plans to accept a position as minister if it was offered, because by law she would have to give up her seat in parliament.
However, she did indicate that she might be willing to take on some kind of other role, possibly to help resolve the country’s ethnic conflicts.
Whatever she chooses, it is a long way from 2002-2003 when Aung San Suu Kyi, in between periods of house arrest, favored a more confrontational approach toward the junta, notably defying orders not to travel around the country.
Aung Naing Oo said Aung San Suu Kyi would bring prestige and influence to whichever role she chose, but her unyielding character could be an issue.
“She also brings her personality and her determination to the table. It would be like a double-edged sword for some of the people. She also can be problematic, so the key issue here is how well she can push her way in these uncharted waters, either in parliament or in government,” he said.
Some have in the past criticized Aung San Suu Kyi for what they saw as an intransigent approach to the junta, saying it resulted in a deadlock between the two sides, but Senior General Than Shwe, the junta chief who regarded her as his personal enemy, stepped down a year ago and the new generation of leaders is better disposed toward her.
Experts say the 66-year-old opposition leader must now look beyond her own legacy.
“No democracy can really build around one person,” said Thitinan Pongsudhirak, a political scientist at Bangkok’s Chulalongkorn University. “Now there has to be a shift to broaden the focus, not just to be on her, but her supporters, her new lieutenants, her party and other democratic institutions in Myanmar, including the ruling party, the incumbent regime.”
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers