Suu Kyi and that Batman Movie Line

Before 2010, Aung San Suu Kyi was the darling of the West, “a beacon of hope, an icon of democracy peacefully fighting the Tatmadaw (Myanmar’s armed forces) and its junta”, writes Michal Lubina. But then came the violent expulsion of the Rohingyas, where Suu Kyi sided with the army, and she became the “Nobel Peace Prize winner who had betrayed her fundamental values”. Was Suu Kyi then the personification of this line from the Batman movie:

“You either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.”

 

Or did the West mis-assess her? Ben Rhodes had written that she was “the idealist, the activist, the politician, the cold pragmatist”. Lubina agrees and points out how complex things have always been. The army was too well-entrenched when she started her political struggle. She understood she could never win with violence, so she switched to “non-violence as a calculated, political choice”:

“She made a virtue out of necessity.”

 

After 2 decades, the military decided to share partial power, and accept some amount of liberalization. This left Suu Kyi with two bad options:

“Either she could retain her ‘moral icon’ position, respected but politically powerless thus becoming a ‘Burmese Dalai Lama’, or she could play the game on the generals’ terms with limited political space.”

The “cold pragmatist” in her won:

“Since 2016 Suu Kyi has been ruling Myanmar alongside men from the same army that placed her under house arrest. It is an uneasy, but manageable relationship.”

She doesn’t try to dismantle the army’s system, and they don’t topple her:

“They do not cross each other’s political red lines.”

 

Her governance track record, therefore, is very unimpressive. Partially because she “inherited a deeply dysfunctional state, ruined due to sixty years of the Tatmadaw’s (army’s) (mis)rule”. COVID-19 hasn’t helped. And she can’t make major structural reforms without antagonizing the army. And yet she has remained popular. Why? Because the alternative is army rule, which is far worse. And the slow, gradual opening up of the country is still an improvement.

 

The ethnic minority groups have been well armed for decades and there is no love lost with the majority. And when it came to the Rohingyas, Suu Kyi toed the military’s line. While the West calls this a betrayal, she herself maintains that “her struggle has always involved pursuing the political path to transform Myanmar”. That’s “the politician, the cold pragmatist” at work. As she views it:

“She welcomed the West when it helped her cause. Today, if the West can no longer accept her, it is their problem, not her’s.”

 

Is Suu Kyi the hero-who-lived-long-enough-to-become-the-villain? Or the pragmatist who does what’s possible, because the alternative is far worse?