It is not uncommon to hear confident assertions that the military leadership of Burma are unsophisticated, poorly educated and, here is the real rub, more than a bit thick. As a batch of assertions I have often thought that these seemed flimsy. The evidence of successful strategising, if not intellectual accomplishment, is plain to see.
In a recent article, Carnegie Endowment visiting scholar Joshua Kurlantzick (best known for his recent book Charm Offensive: How China’s Soft Power Is Transforming the World) questions some of the prevailing understandings of the “thuggish, unworldly and slow-speaking” Senior General and those he commands. Kurlantzick outlines the approach of the military leadership and concludes that “the ‘unsophisticated’ generals’ diplomatic success has gone on for far too long”. From where he sits, the generals have “clearly mastered a survival strategy with regard to the outside world”. Kurlantzick’s analysis contradicts many of the prevailing ideas about what could be called Burma’s despotic anti-intellectualism.
I wonder if there is, however, more to this than meets the eye – is an underwhelming public image actually part of the generals’ survival strategy? Does the common stereotype of Than Shwe as a lumbering and unlettered oaf obscure something deeper, smarter? Is his “lack of education — he reputedly never made it out of primary school” just part of the game?
Like many New Mandala readers, in my time I have known many very clever people who only completed a few years of basic education. Some of them went on to be very successful. And as anyone who has spent a few years around a University will know — formal education does not always equal smarts. Boorishness or difficulties communicating are also not necessarily signs of intellectual weakness.
So how ignorant are the top couple of dozen generals? Have they learned more than a few things in their decades in power? Is the prevailing cliché of battle-hardened but unworldly commanders now overdue for revision?
Moreover, as the dynamics of military rule have changed over the years has there been a transformation in the types of people who have risen through the ranks? Are today’s regional commanders, and even some of the new names on the State Peace and Development Council, different (in temperament, “sophistication”, outlook, etc) to their predecessors?
Or are they, in fact, more like Khin Nyunt (who, for all the stories I have heard about him, I have never heard called ”unworldly”)? Is a revised collective understanding of the generals and their capacities needed? Have they, for far too long, been simply under-estimated?
6 responses so far ↓
1 Doubt // Jul 13, 2008 at 7:40 am
Is relying on the chinese giant… a proof of “intelligence” and “sophistication” ?
We can doubt it.
As for the “survival skills” again… it’s dictator 101 if I may say.
Kim Jong Ill seems much smarter.. This little guy understood very well that… building the bomb was the best life insurance and bargaining tool… even against the direct interests of China…
Now this is serious business and stamina (and “vista”).
On a pure rational level, he did the right thing. The smart thing to do. Exactly like Iran by the way (the discussion about bomb or not bomb is surreal… From a deterrence point of view, the bomb is the only way to go… the denegations of the mollahs are laughable. If they are rational, they need the bomb, absolutly not to wipe out Israel, but just to protect their regime).
But the burmese generals ?
Those guys are here because China needs them… here. And they are much more obedient…
We can argue though : it might be the… ultimate proof of political intelligence…
2 aiontay // Jul 13, 2008 at 9:39 am
They are thugs, and they are none too bright, but having guns and being willing to use them without hesitation usually trumps brilliance and sophistication. It’s kind of like that ancient Greek(?) saying, “The fox knows many tricks, the hedgehog knows but one, but it is a very good trick.”
And while they aren’t bright, they do have a criminal cunning. If you want good account of what I think they’re like, read the section on Ceausescu in chapter “Transylvanian Voices” in Roberrt Kaplan’s book “Balkan Ghosts”.
3 cangku57 // Jul 13, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Kurlantzick and Farrelly are correct in pointing out that the Tatdmadaw leadership might be a lot less stupid than most portrayals of them suggest. But it is important to focus on what may be behind this image of stupidity. The sheer callousness of the Tatmadaw regime towards the Burmese people (including regular Tatmadaw soldiers) is horrifying, but at the same time it has been and continues to be an effective strategy. This contributes to an image of them as brutes, both thuggish and stupid. Harping on their unsophistication is also a way of getting at the regime – not an actually effective one – for both exiles and people in Burma.
Despite the value of Kurlantzick pointing out that maybe the generals aren’t as stupid as they seem there are problems with some of the other points his analysis argues for. Namely, that Burma is becoming a totalitarian state and that there is a personality cult around Than Shwe.
These two concepts are linked in several articles Kurlantzick has put out (for example — http://tiny.cc/uZc1X or http://tiny.cc/cNOR0). Thus in he writes in the Boston Globe Sep 30 2007: ” Than Shwe has also begun dominating state-controlled television, which portrays him as a godlike figure blessing pagodas around the country. He has increased support for the Union Solidarity and Development Association, or USDA, a state-sponsored youth group reminiscent of Mussolini’s fascist youth organizations.” In the Washington Post of April 23 2006 he wrote: “Ten years ago, Burma was an authoritarian nation, but it lacked the strange personality cult of totalitarian states such as North Korea and Turkmenistan. At the time, Than Shwe was just one of three generals heading the ruling Burmese junta[.] …Than Shwe, 73, has pushed out rivals and consolidated power. Despite his shellacked hair, wide jowls and thick glasses, he has turned himself into an object of Dear Leader-like adoration.”
It might be debatable as to whether or not Burma is a totalitarian state. But TV coverage is not dominated by Than Shwe as an individual nor is there any personality cult around him. Sure, he and other Tatmadaw leaders are show “giving instructions” for irrigation projects, physic nut plantations and the like, as well as making donations to religious institutions. And Than Shwe’s picture hangs in the post office, but that is not a personality cult. And if a real sense of ideology, perhaps related to a personalization of leadership, is part of what makes up a totalitarian state, then Burma is not one. In fact, as unpopular as it may be to say it, the best know (and not undeserved) personality cult in Burma is that of the opposition leader.
The point being that the coverage of Burma is too often shallow and more intent of perpetuating a simplistic view of complex events. This is equally true in discussions of Burma’s foreign relations as it is in domestic politics.
4 Moe Aung // Jul 14, 2008 at 1:46 am
Behaving and demanding absolute allegiance and obedience like an autocrat does not equate to a personality cult any more than Ne Win had managed in his time. He at least enjoyed the aura of being a senior member of the legendary Thirty Comrades that formed the nucleus of the modern Burmese military during the fight for independence. Than Shwe has no standing outside the army, and the USDA is made up of people bought, bribed and compelled to join if they want to keep their jobs.
Single-minded pursuit of power, cunning, scheming and plotting, and staying ahead of the game with a strong survival instinct are the main characteristics on top of their principal asset – control of the military. Perhaps it’s the other way round – perhaps it’s their diplomatic adversaries that have proved rather obtuse, gullible or incompetent. It really is a no-brainer.
5 Exceptionalism and the Burmese generals // Jul 14, 2008 at 2:29 am
[...] XHTML ← Are today’s Burmese generals simply “ignorant” and “unsophisticated”? [...]
6 Stephen // Jul 14, 2008 at 12:08 pm
Regarding the personality cult of the opposition leader, see Gustaaf Houtman’s account “Sacrilizing or Demonizing Democracy? Aung San Suu Kyi’s Personality Cult” in Burma at the turn of the 21st Century.
On the idiocy of Burma’s generals I think that we need to look beyond the simple fact of their continuance in power. True, they have played the Suu Kyi card so continually, so predictably and so effectively over the past 15+ years that it appears as though they’ve figured out how to manipulate their “obtuse, gullible or incompetent” diplomatic adversaries. However, the considerable tension within the country in the form of ‘everyday resistance’ by ordinary folk and low morality, dissent and desertion from within the Tatmadaw points to their incompetence in pursuing those aims which they themselves have defined (i.e. national unity and Tatmadaw unity, economic development and the military’s long-term political dominance). If they actually fed their frontline soldiers and tried to address the livelihood concerns of rural people, they could likely go a long way in reducing internal opposition to military rule. However, in their arrogance and unwillingness to listen and respond to criticism (even from within the armed forces) they have demonstrated their idiocy and ensured that prosperity will never come about for the majority of people in the country and widespread support for the military will never occur. Thus, their long-term staying power will remain shaky.
Leave a Comment
Please note: New Mandala encourages vigorous debate. However, for the moment we will only be publishing high-quality comments that make original contributions to discussion. There will, of course, still be space for pithy, humorous, eccentric and cheeky input. Short and sweet will usually trump long and involved. Repetitive ranting, unimaginative point-scoring and idle abuse will not be entertained. Comments which carry a real name are also more likely to be approved. Thank you for your ongoing interest and contributions.