What Ideology is
We refer to our ideology as the beliefs, opinions, ideas and values we hold which determine how we relate to the conflict in Burma and with which groups in Burma we carry out our projects. Our ideology specifically clarifies:
- what kind of movement we are
- how we interpret the situation in Burma
- how we do our work with the people
- what the direction of our movement must be
Why Ideology is important to us
To Burma Issues, the question of ideology is crucial for two reasons. First it is crucial in order to assure the positive integration of different projects and people into the total program of Burma Issues. Secondly, it is crucial to help guide and encourage us as we strive to strengthen the people's movement which is carrying out the long-term struggle necessary to bring a genuine and lasting peace to Burma. In order to participate positively in this struggle, we must have clear answers to some very important questions about who we are, how we interpret the realities in Burma, and what role we wish to play in the people's movement for true peace with justice.
How our Ideology evolved
Our ideology has developed within the realities and context of Burma today, and is based on the experiences Burma Issues has had with people of Burma who live with these realities within the context rather than on erudite theorization. Three very important processes have helped us shape this ideology:
- A careful and on-going analysis of the realities facing the grassroots
- Thoughtful and critical reflections on our past experiences with the grassroots
- Our vision for true justice and peace in Burma
What we are:
Burma Issues is a group of people who believe in serving the grassroots struggle for justice. Burma Issues exists both as an organisation and a movement in serving this grassroots struggle. As an oragnisation it has divided responsibilities for effective work and management. As a movement it is continually expanding its activities to encourage, help, organize and educate the grassroots in their struggle to change unjust political, economic and social structures into just ones. The grassroots can be defined generally as the marginalized people who are at the lowest social stratum; those who suffer the most from injustice. Our belief in the grassroots movement refers to our faith in the ability of the grassroots to transform injustice into justice. This belief does not mean that we do not work with the leaders. If a leader of a society wants to serve the grassroots for the cause of justice, we will closely work with that leaser, but the way we work remains bottom-up. Political, economic and social change refers to the transformation of structures from unjust to just ones, at both micro and macro levels.
Perception of Bias
We are not neutral for the cause of justice. At the same time, we are not biased towards the grassroots. Bias to the grassroots means we accept whatever the people do. Rather we make a distinction between the people's actions and the people themselves. Our collaboration with the people is based on the action, not with the people. We side with the action for justice, not with the people. This is why we are not biased towards a particular group of people. For example, we reject ethnic chauvinism and accept justice defined as ethnic equality, self-determination in politics and economics, and the right of people to preserve their own culture. But this does not mean that we hold a bias towards non-Burman ethnic groups. We side with their action for justice, not with a particular ethnic group. We are also aware that some people within a particular group might use the term of justice as a pretext fro selfish motives. Moreover, we are also aware that the oppressed of today might turn into the oppressors of tomorrow.
Since we are not biased to a group, we do not exclude anyone. We will collaborate with any ethnic group to carry out actions for justice. We do not accept people as the enemy. Our enemy is a system or an act which provokes injustice. For example, the act of ethnic chauvinism by the Burmese government is our enemy, but the Burmans are not our enemy. Therefore we do not cooperate with the acts of the Burmese government. We accept them as human beings, but we reject their acts of chauvinism.
Position towards the grassroots
We are not the owner of the people's struggle for justice. The grassroots are owners of their struggle for justice. We collaborate when they ask us to participate in their actions. We help in providing skills that they need to carry out their actions for justice. For example, we provide skills in human rights information gathering and reporting so that the grassroots will be able to carry out these actions themselves in the future. Sometimes, when we see something that needs to be done, we suggest the action to them but we need to avoid interfering in the process that they themselves are doing. For example, we might suggest that different ethnic groups take action against ethnic chauvinism; we do not interfere in their process of uniting different groups. Interfering in their process might make them feel that we are taking away their ownership. A consequence of this can be the creation of the culture of dependency. Sometimes, even our interference with good intentions can cause many problems among the grassroots and destroy their struggle. For example the hierarchal structure in Burma is very strong. Usually people who posses authority, high education (especially foreign education), and/or wealth constitute the elite of the society. The grassroots often severely suffers from the elite's exploitation. Sometimes our offers of foreign scholarship create severe competition among the grassroots to strive for this elite status instead of uniting to bring change to the system. Through we have very good intentions; this type of our interference can destroy the grassroots struggle for justice. It does not mean that we should not offer scholarships to the grassroots. We should very consciously consider selection procedures and have a very clear plan before we offer the scholarship.
We are also involved in some projects that the grassroots can not carry out by themselves at the present. For example, most of the internally displaced people can not speak or write English, but this language is crucial to raising international awareness about the grassroots struggle for justice. We are, therefore, involved in report writing and newsletter publication projects. At the same time, we provide the grassroots with skill in writing in their own language to increase their participation in the projects and to reduce dependency on us. We need to minimize our direct involvement in the grassroots struggle as much as possible.
We often struggle with the question of providing humanitarian aid to the people because it might divert us from our aim of working for justice and increase their dependency on us. We are not a humanitarian organisation, but this does not meant hat we are not going to provide humanitarian aid when it is related to our projects. However, we need to explain to the people that we are not a humanitarian organisation so they will not see us as a provider of aid.
Position towards Armed struggle
There are two ways to look at the people's armed struggle in Burma. One way is "outside-in". We look at the struggle as outsiders and judge it based on our own prejudices and from our own perspectives. This approach may lead us to pass judgment on the people rather than help us to understand them. Many aspects of the armed struggle are much more complex and deeper than what we have ever experienced in our own lives. The "outside-in" way of looking can limit our attempt to understand the complexity of the people's violent reaction to oppression and isolate us from them. Isolating ourselves from the armed struggle and from people who resort to it will not help us to be involved in minimizing and/or eliminating violence in society.
The "inside-out" approach is an attempt to try to understand the history of the oppression the people are facing, and to empathise with them in their struggle for justice. It does not mean that we agree with their reactions to injustice but rather that we feel the long history of suffering and frustration they have lived under which has led them to finally come to the conclusion that armed struggle is now their only option for survival. This understanding and empathy can help us work with them more effectively in seeking new and more constructive strategies for bringing a true peace with justice to Burma. We need to be more interested in understanding how and why people are involved in armed struggle than in judging them.
Burma Issues has chosen to use the "inside-out" option because we believe that working together with people caught in armed struggle and sharing different options with them will reduce the degree of violence and encourage people to strive for more comprehensive solutions to the civil war in Burma. We reject the "outside-in" option because we believe that if we isolate ourselves from the people who are caught in the violence, we will push them deeper into violence and this will severely increase their own suffering and prolong the war. Since our goal is to eliminate violence, we will directly work with those caught in the violence to help them find more positive ways of ending the conflict.
From our past experiences, we have come to realise that many people caught in armed struggle are truly committed to seeking justice. As we have the same goal as them, we must work with them, even if their process is different from ours. Our cooperation with these people caught in violence is based on a common goal, not on a common process.
We can not eliminate violence within one day. History proves that. We must gradually reduce the level of violence by joining forces with all those seeking true justice and by developing new approaches to building peace. The best way we can reduce the violence is to show new and more positive options to achieve the goals.
For example, many people may take up arms to defend and protect their family and friends in the civil are areas. We can encourage them at the same time to use other options as well. As these new options show effectiveness at bringing an end to violence in a just way, these people will reduce their reliance on armed struggle to achieve their goal.
Many non-violent tactics are more appropriate to the urban communities than they are to the rural and jungle settings. Sit down strikes, walk outs, mass marches, hunger strikes, etc. can be effective in the urban areas but are totally ineffective in the jungle villages. The weakness of both urban movements in Burma and international campaigns to effectively curb the activities of the military has allowed the military to become more aggressive in the rural and jungle areas. This has forced people in these areas to see armed struggle as their only way of fighting back. Without working closely with them to identify effective non-violent forms of struggle for the rural and jungle areas, we can never hope to eliminate violence.
Burma Issues believes that in order to carry out an innovative movement for peace with justice, we must work closely with people who are caught in violence rather than isolating ourselves from them. Since we do not believe in the exclusion of any group of people who seek justice, we have no problem working closely with people who are carrying out armed struggle as long as their true goal is justice. WE have a problem with the act, not with the people.
