Slow Motion Revolutions - Burma and Egypt

Burma and Egypt are both experiencing snail’s pace revolutions and yet both seem to be on the right track. There’s always the danger of reverting to past repression and autocracy but still their paths to democracy and basic rights seem irrevocable. After tasting the freedom to speak their minds, I doubt if the citizens of those countries can ever accept those kinds of restrictions again.

After 50 years in control, Burma’s military rulers have decided to cede power, albeit slowly and grudgingly, to democratic forces. A few years back they wrote a constitution that gives themselves permanent control over 25% of the legislature and at least initially stacked the rest in their favor. More recently the country held by-elections for 45 seats in the parliament in which Ang San Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy won 44. The NLD is almost certain to win a majority in 2015 when the next national elections are held; that is, unless the generals abruptly change their minds and try to revert to the past. Suu Kyi’s party won 89% of the vote in 1989 which was then ignored by the military. Not long after they also reportedly killed about 3000 people demonstrating for power for the NLD (compare that to 300 killed in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square around the same time).

When a country’s leaders are willing to commit mass murder to stay in power, the people have no choice but to retreat and bide their time, and so a whole generation has waited for the military’s change of heart. There are several possible reasons for the movement forward. For one I think they just got tired of being pariahs, of being ostracized by almost the entire world community. While they always lived lavishly, they’ve also watched while their policies and stubbornness brought their country down from one of the wealthiest, most advanced societies in Asia to one of the poorest.

It’s even possible that their impetus for allowing the slow transition to democracy - even while they continue to hold many of the reins of power - is based in large part on greed, since there’s a lot more money to be siphoned off of a growing, advancing economy than one strangled by sanctions. Cambodia provides a good example: half of all the private vehicles and 3/4 of all luxury cars in the country are owned by people connected to the government. When you see a $170,000 Lexus or Range Rover SUV pass by it’s nearly always a bureaucrat’s or public official’s car. That’s in spite of official salaries that are so low - the chief justice of the supreme court earns $640 per month - that  there isn’t a single one of them that could even afford a 10 year old Camry on their salaries alone.

Part of the Burmese military’s change of heart must also have come from the reverberations of the Arab spring and their fear of being on the wrong side of history. The people will eventually demand their rights and in that case autocratic rulers basically have three options. The first is to resist and then when unrest becomes too great to counter with force without killing large numbers of people, either flee or give up, as in Tunisia, Egypt and Yemen. The second is to fight to the death as in Libya and Syria. This will result in ignominy and the likelihood of a messy unceremonious death. The third is what the generals in Burma and Egypt are doing; that is, gradually devolving power to elected leaders. In that way they become good guys, if not quite heroes, and save their own necks in the process.

The situation in Egypt is a bit different than Burma. The military there control 30% to 40% of the entire economy and so they have an especial need to cling to power and have been walking a tightrope between that need and the desire to be seen as democrats and not unnecessarily inflame passions from opposing forces in the country. They set up a legislature and held a free and fair vote but the outcome wasn’t to their expectations so they had the legislature disbanded. It was set up with 2/3rds of legislators coming from proportional representation, 1/3 from individual districts. They weren’t happy that the Muslim Brotherhood, who’ve been the enemy of the military for close to a century, won most of the individual seats.

Before that they had disqualified several leading candidates for the recent presidential election. Voters were left with a choice between Shafiq who had ties to the previous government and Morsi from the Muslim Brotherhood who actually was MB’s second choice. The election was very close, though MB poll watchers counted 51.5% for their candidate. It was close enough for the military rulers to contemplate stealing the election for Shafiq but in the end decided that the storm of protest that would’ve erupted would’ve been uncontainable. Besides only a few days before they had stripped the presidential office of most of its powers, so they let Morsi’s win go through.

Morsi won’t have a lot of real power, but he will speak out for the people and the military will have an impossible time resisting when the people are behind him. So, similar to Suu Kyi he will be biding his time and pushing gently but firmly for true democracy. He’s an Islamist but he’s spoken very clearly that he plans to represent all of the people of Egypt and will appoint women and members of Egypt’s minorities to his cabinet. Morsi was trained in the US as a rocket scientist and two of his children were born in the US and are American citizens. So it’s a good chance that he understands democracy and liberal society

There certainly has been backsliding or resistance to change on the part of the generals in both countries. There are still more than 300 political prisoners in Burma; the Egyptian generals are still arresting people under martial law. Still, considering how harshly American demonstrators have been treated lately, it’s hard to single Burma and Egypt out as not going in the right direction and it still seems that real transition is happening.

As long as the only alternative to gradual change is civil war and/or widespread bloodshed, the democratic leaders of both countries are probably making the right decision to hang back and set aside for the present their impatience for change and the hostility they must feel towards the military in both countries that have made life hell for their people for generations. A little patience seems a worthy tradeoff to prevent the unnecessary loss of life.

It's the Paradigm

Bankia, one of Spain’s largest banks, is needing a €23 billion bailout, to compensate for their over-zealous investments in the country’s late real estate boom gone bust. Throw in a few other teetering banks and the price tag rises to €50. The only way to thrive or even survive in a scenario of irrationally exuberant lending is to borrow more to keep the growth paradigm going. In other words, as long as the value of property is expanding, it’s not necessary to be rational in your investments. But then, as always happens with bubbles, they burst - it is a part of their nature, after all.

There are two ways that happens, though they’re often intertwined. One is inflated prices. At a certain point, prices have to reflect reality. The other is larger economic movements. The general economic malaise that pervades the country depresses optimism and growth. Either way, the loan is defaulted and somebody is going to have to pay.

Spain wants the European Central Bank to bailout the banks directly. That makes sense, since it’s the system, the paradigm, which encourages, almost demands imprudent lending. Used to be you had to put 20% down to buy a house. A buyer who’s accumulated that much cash will generally be a low level risk. However that would also constrict the market and slow down construction so we can’t have any of that. Instead the establishment wisdom is to push the economy to the limit, go for broke, the more growth the better.

The country is also at fault since it could’ve established rules and policies designed more for stability and prudence than growth at any cost. That would not be an easy task in today’s financial environment. There are only so many Hugo Chavez’s in the world who could ignore the dictates of the establishment view.

The borrower, of course, must take a substantial portion of the blame for the broken contract, but ultimately is has to rest with the bank to assume responsibility and take the loss. Banking is about risk; banksters know the level of risk they are undertaking. If you aren’t smart about lending your money, who else is supposed to compensate for your inadequacy?

Actually it’s the taxpayer who coughs up since some type of deposit insurance is essential to a functioning banking system. (But not in Cambodia, here you’re on your own.) There should be no question or hesitation when a bank gets into trouble; it should be shut down and small depositors paid off. There’s no good reason to keep a stupidly or irresponsibly run bank alive. Also as long as the taxpayer is on the hook to insure depositors the government has responsibility to properly regulate to prevent speculation that has the potential to get the bank into trouble. However, since the banksters own the government, at least in the US, we know there can be no changes on that front.

In Europe it may be different, since they have a more socialist, egalitarian political outlook and the people are hopping mad. Still, there’s a very powerful push on the part of the financial establishment for European countries to ‘take their medicine’, that is, to strip any benefits that might aid the 99% so that they’d have the money to feed the banksters.

Still, can you imagine, Spain coughs up €50 to protect the banks at the same time they’re slashing safety net funds in an economy with 25% unemployment? In fact, latest news is that the Spanish government has accepted a $125 billion loan to bailout its banks… anything to protect the banksters.

The European establishment may be forced to change the paradigm but Americans will never get it together if the recent recall result in Wisconsin is any indicator. Governor Scott Walker, who was elected in a Tea Party surge in 2010, started off giving $180 million in tax breaks to business and then discovered there wasn’t enough money to pay public employees. His ultimate goal, unstated in the campaign, was to break the public unions, which he proceeded to do by virtue of Repug control of both houses of state government.

This didn’t sit well with the unions or the progressive community so they fought back with a signature gathering campaign to recall the governor. The got the necessary signatures, all right, but lost badly in the election with Walker sustained in office by a 53% to 46% vote. There are two immediate reasons why the Repug won. The most important was the flood of money from right-wing billionaire assholes. According to the US Supreme Court - which today garners the support of only 44% of the people - money has the right of free speech. The other reason was that Obama gave the campaign neither financial or moral support. The feckless wonder did not stand by the people. The Dem running against Walker had $4 million and was outspent 8 to 1. Obama made $3.5 million in one fundraising event but couldn’t see his way to helping a fellow Dem.

The fundamental reason for the Dem’s defeat is that Americans, at least a lot of them, are political morons. It’s called the Fox News effect: A recent study showed people who watched Fox were less informed than people who watched no news at all. It’s people who rail against socialism at the same time they love their Medicare, that socialist program that would save the country $400 billion a year if it applied to everyone. It isn’t just the average low IQ wingnut dolt that doesn’t know their ass from a hole in the ground. You’ve got Romney and the Repugs insisting on programs of slashing public services to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy as a path to economic recovery when that’s been an abject failure since Reagan.

Once again Americans face a disheartening lack of choice this November, though the country will slide downhill a little slower with Obama at the helm. In the end result, the people get the politics they deserve… unfortunately.

  

Showdown in Thailand

Thailand’s embattled Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiwa has said that society can not be changed through intimidation. He was speaking of red-shirt protesters who’ve shut down an upscale hotel and shopping district in the center of Bangkok with their barricades of tires and bamboo poles. Abhisit has also made some serious threats to drive out the protesters by force.

This is beyond ironic since he owes his own tenure to yellow-shirt protesters who shut down Bangkok’s international airport in order to drive out an elected government. The yellow shirts represent the army brass, royalists and the Bangkok elite. They call themselves People’s Alliance for Democracy but they want a majority of parliament to be appointed rather than elected because in a free election they are certain to lose to the red-shirts who represent the masses.

The yellows positively despise Taksin Shinawatra, deposed leader of the red-shirts; at this point he’s more like a spiritual leader and probably financial benefactor. He’s in exile and can’t return without facing a jail term. I have very little respect for him myself; I consider him responsible for mass murder. He campaigned on a pledge to rid the country of drugs within three months of his election and upon taking office he ordered the police to take out a lot of ‘drug dealers’.

In the event 2500 people were summarily executed. According to the police they were all killed in drug turf shootouts. The killings met widespread approval amongst the people. The problem in Thailand is mostly meth which can certainly be a scourge. Even an expat I talked to not long after the killing spree thought it was a good idea; that is, until I pointed out that without benefit of fair trials and the opportunity to defend oneself, it was likely that at least ten percent – 250 people – were either entirely innocent or at most guilty of small time misdemeanors: certainly nothing worthy of death sentences.

The major complaint the establishment had against Taksin was the special treatment he set up for himself when he sold his telecom company, largest in Thailand. He had legislation passed which exempted the $1.9 billion sale from taxes. He was only the richest man in the country, but couldn’t stand to pay his fair share of the cost of government. It also rankled the elite that he sold it to Singapore’s sovereign wealth fund, in other words it is now owned by a foreign government.

As a result of the hatred of Taksin on the part of the elite, he was ousted in a military coup in 2006. The problem is that he’s the most popular elected leader in Thai history. He’s the first to serve out a full term in office, the first to be reelected to a second term and the first to win an outright majority in parliament and not need coalition partners to govern.

He accomplished that popularity by being the first Thai leader to take account of the needs of the rural poor and common people in general. It certainly can be argued that he really doesn’t give a shit about the people and that his policies are pure populist vote buying, but that’s neither here nor there, the fact is he did it and the people love him for it.

The first prime minister chosen by Taksin’s party – which was still in power - after the coup was removed by the courts because of a conflict of interest: He hosted a cooking show on TV for which he received a token $50 payment. The second, as mentioned previously, was ousted, essentially driven out of power, by yellow-shirt protesters who shut down the airport until their demands were met.

The big question is why they were so adamant about ousting a Taksin oriented government after Taksin himself was out of the picture. I don’t live there, only in a neighboring country, but I have lived there in the past and have traveled there extensively. Even so, I can’t claim to be an expert on the situation, only an interested observer. At any rate, the only reason I can come up with for the elite’s resolve in removing an elected government is that they couldn’t stand seeing public benefits going to the country’s poor. I know it makes no sense, but that’s the best I can make of it.

The common people of Thailand have found their voice and their strength and are no longer willing to accept the trickle down benefits offered by the elite. Thailand has one of the least equitable societies in this region.

What gets me is how the royalists thought they could use people power to oust a government without expecting the opposition to take the same tact.

Where it stands now is that the red-shirts are demanding new elections. The prime minister has offered to bring up the date of the next election to this December instead of a year December, but the red-shirts are holding firm to an earlier date. How much more basic can you get than ask for an election to replace an unelected government?

There’s one wild card in the mix; Thailand’s ailing king. He is highly revered by the people and if he wished to intervene, the government would be out in a wink. Thailand has very strong Lese Majeste laws which make the least criticism of the king a serious offense. The king is still a strong stabilizing force, but his son, heir to the throne, is widely disliked by the Thai people. When the current king dies, there will be an additional strong destabilizing force in the situation.

I don’t see civil war, but in this volatile mix, almost anything is possible.