- By Peter Soe-Wynn | Monday, 30 September 2013
Daw Aung San Suu Kyi attends the Forum 2000 Conference in Prague on September 17. Photo: AFPSince childhood she has been no stranger to the world of statesmen and world leaders. She is articulate and speaks French, Japanese and English, the latter as fluently as her Burmese, and her speeches, both in Myanmar or on the international stage in either Burmese or English, are impeccable. She can deal with local and foreign media clearly and concisely.
She is a woman of integrity who resolutely stood by the people of Myanmar when they needed her in their struggle for a better life, and she has doggedly maintained her principles in the face of psychological and physical attacks on her, her loved ones and her fellow citizens.
Very few people of such calibre have appeared in Myanmar. Yet, in drawing up the nation’s constitution – aside from assuring that power lies in the hands of the military for perpetuity – the junta which ruled over the past five decades prescribed thinly veiled clauses which, while falling just short of naming her specifically, are aimed at barring Daw Aung San Suu Kyi in particular from holding office as president.
The first excuse imposed was that, though she herself maintains her Myanmar citizenship, she was married to an Englishman.
Her husband, Michael Aris, was an Oxford don, a very highly respected man of intellect and a supportive partner in the sacrifices they both made for the sake of the Myanmar people. Unfortunately, Dr Aris passed away in 1999, long before his wife’s release from house arrest and election to the Myanmar parliament. When his sickness became known he was prevented by the military from visiting his wife. While they offered to allow her to visit him instead, both knew she would not be allowed back into Myanmar, and so refused.
It is widely stated that Dr Aris’s passing – tragic as it was – lifted a bar in his wife’s
In fact, the question is one of many on which the constitution is vague, meaning those holding the balance of power – namely, the military – will be the ones left making the final decisions.
Daw Suu aside, barring any presidential candidate from marriage to a foreigner is unjustified.
Looking around the world to see whether being married to a foreign partner has a detrimental effect on the holding of a high office, we see that it does not. Nor, as a
Rajiv Ghandi, prime minister of India 1984-89, was the grandson of Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first prime minister who established parliamentary government in India. Rajiv’s mother, Indira Ghandi, is Jawaharlal Nehru’s daughter; she herself was Indian prime minister for three consecutive terms in 1966-77, then again 1984-89. Rajiv Ghandi married Edvige Antonia Albina Maino, better known as Sonia, whom he met while studying at the University of Cambridge. Sonia was an Italian, born in Lusiana, Italy. When Rajiv Ghandi later became the prime minister of India, the fact that he was married to an Italian was never an issue. After he was assassinated, Sonia became the current president and leader of the Indian Congress Party. She is believed to be the most powerful woman in India today.
Nicolas Sarkozy, president of France from 2007 to 2012, divorced his first wife Cecilia, who was French, and married Italian Carla Bruni, who was born in Turin, while in office.
The leader of the UK’s Liberal Democratic Party, Nick Clegg, is married to Miriam Durantez, who is Spanish. He currently serves as the country’s deputy prime minister.
Prince Philip of Great Britain, husband of Queen Elizabeth II, was first Prince Philip of Greece. Queen Elizabeth is not only queen of Great Britain but also head of state of members of the Commonwealth of Nations, with unrivalled popularity at home and abroad.
Prince Albert of Monaco married Charlene Woodstock of South Africa; his father and predecessor, Prince Rainier, married Grace Kelly of the United States.
In the examples above, the respective countries and principalities have not suffered due to a head of state or senior member of government marrying a foreigner; nor have the countries or principalities been undermined. Daw Suu’s enormous, decades-long popularity shows it does not hold her back here either.
There is another impediment restricting her from being eligible for the presidency: Her two sons hold British citizenship. It is important to point out, however, that this is not by choice. Both were Myanmar citizens until 1989, when the military junta stripped them of their status out of spite toward Daw Suu. The UK government granted them British status only to prevent them from becoming stateless. For the current government to continue to punish Daw Suu as a result of the junta’s past treatment of her family is absurd.
But the most wide-ranging clause written into the constitution that could be used to bar her – and for that matter, the vast majority of the people of the country – from holding the presidency is that candidates must be “well acquainted” with military affairs.
Without clear guidance on what this means, this could be used to disqualify candidates without a military background at will. This requirement, together with the retention of 25 percent of seats in parliament for serving military personnel, is a travesty of democracy. It is tantamount to trying to deceive not only the people of Myanmar but also the international community as a whole with a thinly veiled attempt to perpetuate military dictatorship.
In democracies elsewhere in the world, presidents, prime ministers and heads of state have been lawyers, doctors, professors, writers, businesspeople, trade unionists and so on – and, yes, even former military officers, if the people decide they are the best for the job.
The primary requirement for a presidential candidate must be that he or she is a citizen of the country. Beyond this, the people should decide based on the integrity, probity and loyalty of the candidate. In its present form, however, the constitution is a laughing stock among the family of nations.
The basic principle of democracy is that people vote to elect the best person for the job: the person with the right kind of political principles, convictions and calibre to represent them. Then, according to the constitution, the people’s elected representatives choose from among themselves the person best suited for the post of the president. Naturally, the political party which wins the greater proportion of the seats in parliament would propose its own leader. But if that party, in 2015, is not allowed to do this freely, the elections will have been for naught.
How we constitute the governance of the country will determine whether or not we achieve the kind of society we want. The constitution needs to be redrafted with the welfare of the country in mind, for now and for the future. It must be rewritten by the elected representatives of all ethnic groups of the country, free from the coercive influences of any one section of society. Until the people can choose their president freely, without limitations based on marriage, children with foreign citizenship, or military experience, this democracy can never be truly democratic.
Peter Soe-Wynn served as a paediatrician with the National Health Service in the UK from 1979 and is now retired. He is a supporter of democratic and social change in Myanmar.
No comments:
Post a Comment