BURMA

With the junta-style elections imminent (today), I was wondering how I felt about Aung San Suu Kyi’s pleas to boycott the election, as any outcome would lead to no change – the military have a final say over election results and have the power to veto any piece of legislation.

Having been under house arrest for the best part of twenty years and unable to stand for the National League for Democracy in this election (the first since her ignored victory in 1990), Suu Kyi has recommended Burmese voters to keep away from the elections as they are clearly undemocratic. The government has banned many local candidates to stand for the legislature (the Kachin State Progressive Party has been forbidden from participating), and in some cases has completely disenfranchised whole towns . In this way her pleas make sense – if there is no point doing something, then it is a waste of time doing it. Instead, time should be focused on improving situations via other means – part of Suu Kyi’s Nobel Peace Prize money funds London’s Project Burma, offering higher education grants to Burmese students. Also, Obama’s demand for her release shows an increasing international effort to better the lot of the oppressed Burmese. ‘The Lady’ has a point – those who want real democracy are better off acting outside the box and ignoring the election in the same way the junta will ignore the results.

However, there are hundreds of independent candidates fighting for the slim chance of a seat in the closed-off and rich capital city of Naypyidaw, a city only used by government officials with the architecture and grandeur of an MEDC (a feat unmatched by any other part of the country). These pro-democratic political hopefuls who are so oppressed that they cannot hold meetings of over five people without government permission are surely a fantastic example of grassroots protest – a phenomenon that should be encouraged. Generally members of the chattering classes, these candidates are not allowed to outwardly criticize the junta, but 40% government spending on the army and 1% on health and education are figures that speak for themselves. No matter how many votes they receive it is unlikely that any of these people will be permitted to win a seat, but surely any stand counts for something, and a reasonable turnout to support these democratic candidates is an undeniable signal of unrest (not to be compared with the unrest shown by monks in 2007 – any election result is still within the junta’s legal boundaries).

As I see it, Aung San Suu Kyi’s denunciation of the elections is rational as they count for nothing apart from increasing an oppressive regime’s mandate. However, my inherent instinct would be to vote. I firmly believe that if you are offered participation in an election, that right should be fulfilled. This is irrational, but I cannot help the way I feel. In this way, I hope that many Burmese people vote for independent candidates as this is their only possible safe act of defiance (this is of course assuming that the junta have no way of identifying whose ballot is whose). To conclude, the Burmese elections are an insult to democracy, but any vote is a vote and should be used regardless.

TEA PARTY

In light of the House of Representatives changing hands in US Congress, I thought I’d write what I think about the Tea Party, the grass-roots movement from the right of the Republican Party that has risen up into a media phenomenon in the last 18 months.

The media has chosen to represent them as a scary crackpot group with crazy ideas – and the Tea Party has given them excellent reason to do so. When the movement endorses such candidates as Christine “I am not a witch” O’Donnell and Sharron “destroy all social security” Angle, it is difficult to see past them. It is even harder when some members are quite clearly racist and horrifically narrow-minded – Glen Beck’s devout Christianity (shared by a significant proportion of members) as well as the Church’s backing of the movement as a way of “getting Islam out of the White House” provides examples of extremist views that the liberal media laps up to denounce the Tea Party.

However, the Tea Party is a movement, not a political party. In this way, it incorporates many views without a specific agenda; extreme social conservatives can align with disillusioned Democrats as a by-product of the disconnect felt by the American people. The Tea Party is predominantly filled by fiscal conservatives – people who believe that if their domestic books need to be balanced, then the least government can do is do the same; they are highly opposed to wide-scale public spending. 55% of Tea Party members are women, the traditional domestic accountants in US culture, and the backbone that binds the few psychos with the large number of sensible unhappy middle-class Americans are ‘pocket-book issues’ plain and simple.

The Tea Party can be seen as a reaction to the Obama administration, a democratic protest against his public spending and left-leaning policies. Although to call his actions “socialist” or even “unconstitutional” is ridiculous, it is true that his financial interventions are too much for America. To UK citizens, the outcry about Obamacare is alien to our culture, but the Tea Party have a point. We must remember that although we share a language with the USA, we do not share a culture, and the American way is a way of small government and a lot of almost utilitarian freedom for its citizens. The Tea Party do not see healthcare as evil – they do not in general even decry further regulation of healthcare systems – they just do not want to be told what to do. As a nation of grafters and entrepreneurs, any form of government intervention is met with suspicion, a suspicion that as members of the most successful liberal democracy in the world they are fully entitled to.

Although bad for Obama, the main victim of the Tea Party is arguably the establishment Republican Party – it is a fact that any shift to an extreme makes a party less electable. The factional divide of the Republicans has exposed huge weaknesses in their opposition to the present administration, at a time when they should be strong and united; without the split the Republicans would seem a preferable alternative to the mojo-less Obama.

As I see it, it is good that the Republicans have won the House in terms of democracy – the people are generally unimpressed by the last two years and have used their right of franchise to convey this. However, as the Tea Party has simultaneously weakened both mainstream US parties, 2012 looks to be a year of distinctly weak Presidential candidates. Who will stand for the Republicans is unclear; it is said that Tea Party poster girl Sarah Palin is not taking the traditional actions of an expected candidate and is unlikely to stand. Whoever does, the race between the Tea Party and the establishment Republican will be an interesting one – watch this space.