How did the “Burmese Way to Socialism” fail in Myanmar?
The world’s political landscape has undergone significant transformations, with various ideologies challenging for dominance, including liberalism, socialism, and communism. At that time, some countries have chosen to adopt a communist or socialist approach. In contrast, others embrace liberalism to shape their society according to their chosen ideology.
How did it get started?
In 1958, the country’s prime minister, U Nu, faced a political crisis. He had been in power since independence, but opposition groups and the military were increasingly challenging his leadership. So he called for a general election in February of that year to resolve the problem.
However, the election helped resolve the political crisis. However, the results were inconclusive, and U Nu and his main political rival, U Saw, claimed victory. The situation quickly escalated, and there were fears of a military coup led by General Ne Win, one of thirty comrades trained in Japan to go against the British Colonial era.
Then, in March 1958, the army chief, General Ne Win, staged a coup and took control of the government. He suspended the constitution, dissolved the parliament, and established a military government. Ne Win promised to restore stability to the country and rebuild the economy, which had been in disharmony within the country for years.
Under Ne Win’s regime, the military government initiated a series of economic and political reforms. For example, the government nationalized vital industries and implemented land reforms to reduce inequality and promote economic growth. The country also adopted a policy of neutrality in foreign affairs, maintaining good relations with the West and the Soviet Union.
Then, the Ne Win regime developed the policy called the “Burmese Way to Socialism,” which was based on the principles of socialism, nationalism, and Buddhism. The Burmese way to socialism emphasized state ownership of the means of production, a redistribution of wealth, and a commitment to social welfare programs. It also emphasized the importance of self-reliance and self-sufficiency, with the goal of reducing the country’s dependence on foreign aid and investment.
The Ne Win regime thought that the ideology was seen as a way to address the country’s economic struggles and to promote greater equality and social justice. As part of it, the government nationalized key industries, such as oil and gas, banking, and transportation. The government also implemented land reforms with the aim of reducing inequality and promoting economic growth.
During that period, Myanmar disappeared behind a bamboo curtain while its economy hovered on the brink of bankruptcy. His strategy was two-fold: to build up a monolithic system of government under the Burma Socialist Program Party (BSPP) while launching all-out offensives against insurgent groups in the countryside. Foreigners were expelled, the economy nationalized, hundreds of political leaders imprisoned, and, when students protested at Rangoon University in July 1962, the union building was dynamited, with dozens killed (Hays,2014).
Its economic policy
As per the Revolutionary Council Report, the fundamental principle of a socialist economy is the collective participation of all members in works of common ownership aimed at achieving the general well-being of the society. It is based on a system of planning, which aims to ensure sufficiency and contentment for all, and promotes the sharing of benefits derived from such efforts. The primary objective of a socialist economy is creating a new society where all individuals can live in peace and prosperity, with economic security and moral upliftment.
To achieve this objective, a socialist economy is designed to plan the production of consumer goods proportionally, considering the population and productive forces. The goal is to ensure that there is sufficiency and abundance of essential goods while simultaneously enhancing the standard of living and increasing the nation’s purchasing power. By expanding production, a socialist economy seeks to provide more opportunities for the people and promote economic growth while ensuring equitable distribution of resources and benefits for all members of the society.
External links were cut, and banks, businesses, and the economy were nationalized. During this period, there was no state policy on competition and development except for some commonly recognized rules. State banks were controlled by military leaders (Devi, 2014)
His economic policies were unsuccessful, but social indicators such as literacy, infant mortality, and basic health care improved under Ne Win.
However, such improvement might have been greater under a more pragmatic economic regime. Partly because of the insurgency, expenditure on the Armed Forces greatly exceeded the funds devoted to health and education. (Milne, 2015)
How did it not work?
However, the Burmese way to socialism was not successful and had flaws and limitations. The government’s policies often resulted in inefficiencies, corruption, and a lack of economic growth. The country’s isolationist policies also contributed to its financial struggles, as it became increasingly cut off from the global economy.
There were three key points why the Burmese Way to Socialism failed in Myanmar at that time. First, it was the government’s emphasis on state control and central planning. The government nationalized key industries and imposed price controls, which often resulted in inefficiencies and corruption. As a result, the economy stagnated, with low levels of productivity and high levels of inflation.
Second, the country’s leaders were often suspicious of foreign influence and relied heavily on state-owned enterprises, which limited the development of the private sector and led to a lack of innovation and competitiveness. The private hospitals were brought under public ownership, and a system of state hospitals and institutions was established in Burma. A new method of public education was introduced, and a campaign to eradicate illiteracy was launched in 1965.
Third, the government’s repressive policies towards political opposition and civil society suppressed free expression and debate, which limited the flow of new ideas and critical perspectives. This resulted in a lack of accountability and transparency and led to widespread corruption and abuse of power.
Mismanagement of this policy resulted in chronic inflation. It almost led to economic collapse by the late 1980s, which triggered large-scale protests that nearly toppled the government at that time. Subsequently, the military has continued to wield significant influence over the economy, with military officials occupying leadership positions in most state-owned enterprises, often as a reward for political allegiance. Additionally, a small number of “crony” companies, closely tied to the military junta, enjoy preferential treatment and monopolistic advantages due to government policies.
Ultimately, the Burmese Way to Socialism failed to achieve its goals of promoting social justice and economic development. Instead, it led to economic stagnation, political repression, and a lack of innovation and competitiveness. As a result, the Burmese way to socialism was officially abandoned in the late 1980s, and the transition towards a more market-oriented economy began.
Lesson Learnt from these miserable wrongdoings
The Burmese way to socialism relied heavily on state control and central planning, which resulted in inefficiencies, corruption, and economic stagnation. As such, Myanmar’s future development should prioritize economic liberalization, private sector growth, and openness to foreign investment.
In addition, the policy was characterized by political repression, a lack of accountability and transparency, and limited political freedoms. To prevent similar issues from arising, Myanmar’s government should prioritize political reforms, including respect for human rights, democratic institutions, and the rule of law. Plus, Myanmar’s government should promote the development of civil society, including non-governmental organizations, community groups, and the media.
Lastly, adopting an all-inclusive based federal democratic constitution is an ensuring that the political process is transparent and inclusive, with a focus on representing the interests of all citizens regardless of their background or political affiliation.
