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.”
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US