Aung San Suu Kyi: principles and practicalities

The past twelve months in Burmese politics has delivered a lorry-load of surprises. A well-entrenched military junta has busied itself with a raft of political and economic reforms that are, for the time being at least, transforming an isolated and impoverished nation.

We got another surprise today when the wildly popular leader of Burma’s political opposition did something that few expected her to do. Aung San Suu Kyi backed down in a dispute over the wording of the country’s parliamentary oath.

Her National League for Democracy party swept recent by-elections, winning 43 of the 44 contested seats. However, Ms Suu Kyi and her colleagues refused to enter parliament because they were required to promise, as part of the swearing in ceremony, to “safeguard” Burma’s constitution.

Ms Suu Kyi had good reasons to resist. How could she promise to protect a document she wants to scrap? The constitution gives Burma’s military a veto over all major decisions – 25 per cent of the seats in Parliament are reserved for serving members.

Still, the Nobel Prize winner has swallowed her pride and taken the plunge, uttering the oath in front of the parliamentary speaker this morning. She didn’t offer up a great deal of enthusiasm though – when asked by reporters whether this was a historic occasion she said, “only time will tell.”

In the end, she made a difficult but practical decision to end the stand-off. The people who support her and elected her really want Ms Suu Kyi in parliament. They want her to challenge the main military-backed party, the USDP – and they want her to deliver change. By refusing to take her seat, Ms Suu Kyi would have frustrated her supporters and emboldened the anti-democracy hardliners in the Burmese government who are only too keen to keep Ms Suu Kyi sniping from the side lines.

And the thing about politicians making promises and pledges – or upholding public oaths is that they only have real worth and value if the majority of the population believes in the thing they are promising to uphold. The Burmese certainly care about democracy and improving living standards – but I don’t think they are too concerned about a pledge to “safe-guard” the constitution. That’s just one of a thousand things or more that will have to change in the future.

There are plenty of examples of politicians in other countries making sacred – and ultimately unsustainable promises. In the United States, the vast majority of Republican members of Congress have promised to never vote for any measure that raises taxes. In a country with colossal debts and enormous obligations (military, social programs), this type of promise seems doomed to failure. On the other end of the political spectrum, the socialist candidate for the French presidency, Francois Hollande, has pledged not to cut a single euro from current government spending levels. Once again, he holds a position that seems to fly in the face of current economic realities.

I expect US Republicans and French Socialists to do what Ms Suu Kyi has done: cite extenuating circumstances and make some deals. It’s not always principled – but it is certainly more effective.

You can follow John on Twitter @c4sparks