demo-crazy is the opposite of the above description empowered by the people themselves...
Still ASLEEP?! WAKE UP!
I didn't think I had to write or should write:
Dancing or fighting peacock, I don't take either side, I don't discriminate, I don't think we must divide ourselves with such ideological disunity. That view of making devision amongst ourselves should be left behind... I do believe that.
Just consider why the communists didn't believe how Burma was not independent yet even after the declaration of independence on 4 January 1948. The reason is they were not the one who made that independence occurred. So they fought on ... but who did they fight against ... after the British had left completely? Yes, who were their targets? And their revolution went on ... selfishly... systematically to destroy ... the country ... like Polpot did!!!!!
And why did General Aung San left the army and became a politician? He could have become a dictator ... like
Well, are we all aware of how to be realistic?
Political pragmatism... (let different views face on)
I believe we must dare to see! We must dare to be honest - even if in silence.
What to see? What is that we have to be honest about to ourselves?
The causes of and the causes that keep our problems. The causes that don't give us victory. The causes that give us defeats again and again!
Just have the guts to be honest to yourselves!!!
Democracy is not an ism. It's how the reality of the world is. Whether you look a prosperous country or a ruin one, you can find how people decide the way they want to be ... and what exploits their way of thought and how they have been. And think about Burma after that... think about Burma only after you look the wider world first.
Democracy is not an ism but it's the way of life. You can see the quality of different democracies. Some people have good democracy and some have bad democracy. All of them are the reality of the world. And Burma has some chaotic thought patterns of different leaders, activists and the general. Maybe not a strange thing... some are systematic, some are idealistic, some are pragmatic and some/or most are just mixed.
Then how about you?
I rather be pragmatic even if it's not easy for everyone to practice "practical changes".
My understanding of Political Pragmatism is simple. Find the problems, and find the causes of these problems and find the solutions. Knowing problems doesn't lead to finding solutions directly. You must find the causes of problems... and you must be courageous and honest! With an open mind, you find the solutions.
I don't know whether General Aung San was pragmatic or just following the rules - not to govern the nation in military uniform. If he was just pragmatic, then yet he was not pragmatic enough in one situation - he left the military in the hand of a corrupt. Maybe he didn't have much chance to do it differently - then why?
As we all know Burma was never really Burma. Not even now. It's a union of different ethnics who thought they didn't want to be in the union forever. Why? That can be still the same - the reality now. Why? Assume it as the reality and find the cause ... Do we have to? We all know they are asking for better treatment, equality and not being discriminated in any form. And their solution is? Civil War!
What has civil war served anyway? What has it produced? What is its reality in general appearance? And its future?
Isn't it civil war what has backfired the ethnics? Far from achieving their ambitions, all they have gained is the ruin of all ... and yet they don't even get simple recognition amongst themselves!
Can we learn how to be pragmatic? And become more and more pragmatic?
Pragmatism doesn't need to overlook idealism. IDEALISM POLITICAL doesn't need to be thrown into the bin... Pragmatism is to make use of everything available pragmatically.