It
is not power that corrupts but fear. Fear of
losing power corrupts those who wield it and
fear of the scourge of power corrupts those
who are subject to it. Most Burmese are familiar
with the four a-gati, the four kinds of corruption.
Chanda-gati, corruption induced by desire, is
deviation from the right path in pursuit of
bribes or for the sake of those one loves. Dosa-gati
is taking the wrong path to spite those against
whom one bears ill will, and moga-gati is aberration
due to ignorance. But perhaps the worst of the
four is bhaya-gati, for not only does bhaya,
fear, stifle and slowly destroy all sense of
right and wrong, it so often lies at the root
of the other three kinds of corruption. Just
as chanda-gati, when not the result of sheer
avarice, can be caused by fear of want or fear
of losing the goodwill of those one loves, so
fear of being surpassed, humiliated or injured
in some way can provide the impetus for ill
will. And it would be difficult to dispel ignorance
unless there is freedom to pursue the truth
unfettered by fear. With so close a relationship
between fear and corruption it is little wonder
that in any society where fear is rife corruption
in all forms becomes deeply entrenched.
Public dissatisfaction with economic hardships
has been seen as the chief cause of the movement
for democracy in Burma, sparked off by the student
demonstrations 1988. It is true that years of
incoherent policies, inept official measures,
burgeoning inflation and falling real income
had turned the country into an economic shambles.
But it was more than the difficulties of eking
out a barely acceptable standard of living that
had eroded the patience of a traditionally good-natured,
quiescent people - it was also the humiliation
of a way of life disfigured by corruption and
fear.
The students were protesting not just against
the death of their comrades but against the
denial of their right to life by a totalitarian
regime which deprived the present of meaningfulness
and held out no hope for the future. And because
the students' protests articulated the frustrations
of the people at large, the demonstrations quickly
grew into a nationwide movement. Some of its
keenest supporters were businessmen who had
developed the skills and the contacts necessary
not only to survive but to prosper within the
system. But their affluence offered them no
genuine sense of security or fulfilment, and
they could not but see that if they and their
fellow citizens, regardless of economic status,
were to achieve a worthwhile existence, an accountable
administration was at least a necessary if not
a sufficient condition. The people of Burma
had wearied of a precarious state of passive
apprehension where they were 'as water in the
cupped hands' of the powers that be.
Emerald cool we may be
As water in cupped hands
But oh that we might be
As splinters of glass
In cupped hands.
Glass splinters, the smallest with its sharp,
glinting power to defend itself against hands
that try to crush, could be seen as a vivid
symbol of the spark of courage that is an essential
attribute of those who would free themselves
from the grip of oppression. Bogyoke Aung San
regarded himself as a revolutionary and searched
tirelessly for answers to the problems that
beset Burma during her times of trial. He exhorted
the people to develop courage: 'Don't just depend
on the courage and intrepidity of others. Each
and every one of you must make sacrifices to
become a hero possessed of courage and intrepidity.
Then only shall we all be able to enjoy true
freedom.'
The effort necessary to remain uncorrupted in
an environment where fear is an integral part
of everyday existence is not immediately apparent
to those fortunate enough to live in states
governed by the rule of law. Just laws do not
merely prevent corruption by meting out impartial
punishment to offenders. They also help to create
a society in which people can fulfil the basic
requirements necessary for the preservation
of human dignity without recourse to corrupt
practices. Where there are no such laws, the
burden of upholding the principles of justice
and common decency falls on the ordinary people.
It is the cumulative effect on their sustained
effort and steady endurance which will change
a nation where reason and conscience are warped
by fear into one where legal rules exist to
promote man's desire for harmony and justice
while restraining the less desirable destructive
traits in his nature.
In an age when immense technological advances
have created lethal weapons which could be,
and are, used by the powefful and the unprincipled
to dominate the weak and the helpless, there
is a compelling need for a closer relationship
between politics and ethics at both the national
and international levels. The Universal Declaration
of Human Rights of the United Nations proclaims
that 'every individual and every organ of society'
should strive to promote the basic rights and
freedoms to which all human beings regardless
of race, nationality or religion are entitled.
But as long as there are governments whose authority
is founded on coercion rather than on the mandate
of the people, and interest groups which place
short-term profits above long-term peace and
prosperity, concerted international action to
protect and promote human rights will remain
at best a partially realized struggle. There
will continue to be arenas of struggle where
victims of oppression have to draw on their
own inner resources to defend their inalienable
rights as members of the human family.
The quintessential revolution is that of the
spirit, born of an intellectual conviction of
the need for change in those mental attitudes
and values which shape the course of a nation's
development. A revolution which aims merely
at changing official policies and institutions
with a view to an improvement in material conditions
has little chance of genuine success.
Without a revolution of the spirit, the forces
which produced the iniquities of the old order
would continue to be operative, posing a constant
threat to the process of reform and regeneration.
It is not enough merely to call for freedom,
democracy and human rights. There has to be
a united determination to persevere in the struggle,
to make sacrifices in the name of enduring truths,
to resist the corrupting influences ofdesire,
ill will, ignorance and fear.
Saints, it has been said, are the sinners who
go on trying. So free men are the oppressed
who go on trying and who in the process make
themselves fit to bear the responsibilities
and to uphold the disciplines which will maintain
a free society. Among the basic freedoms to
which men aspire that their lives might be full
and uncramped, freedom from fear stands out
as both a means and an end. A people who would
build a nation in which strong, democratic institutions
are firmly established as a guarantee against
state-induced power must first learn to liberate
their own minds from apathy and fear.
Always one to practise what he preached, Aung
San himself constantly demonstrated courage
- not just the physical sort but the kind that
enabled him to speak the truth, to stand by
his word, to accept criticism, to admit his
faults, to correct his mistakes, to respect
the opposition, to parley with the enemy and
to let people be the judge of his worthiness
as a leader. It is for such moral courage that
he will always be loved and respected in Burma
- not merely as a warrior hero but as the inspiration
and conscience of the nation. The words used
by Jawaharlal Nehru to describe Mahatma Gandhi
could well be applied to Aung San:
'The essence of his teaching was fearlessness
and truth, and action allied to these, always
keeping the welfare of the masses in view.'
Gandhi, that great apostle of non-violence,
and Aung San, the founder of a national army,
were very different personalities, but as there
is an inevitable sameness about the challenges
of authoritarian rule anywhere at any time, so
there is a similarity in the intrinsic qualities
of those who rise up to meet the challenge.
Nehru, who considered the instillation of courage
in the people of India one of Gandhi's greatest
achievements, was a political modernist, but
as he assessed the needs for a twentieth-century
movement for independence, he found himself
looking back to the philosophy of ancient India:
'The greatest gift for an individual or a nation
. .. was abhaya, fearlessness, not merely bodily
courage but absence of fear from the mind.'
Fearlessness may be a gift but perhaps more
precious is the courage acquired through endeavour,
courage that comes from cultivating the habit
of refusing to let fear dictate one's actions,
courage that could be described as 'grace under
pressure' - grace which is renewed repeatedly
in the face of harsh, unremitting pressure.
Within a system which denies the existence of
basic human rights, fear tends to be the order
of the day. Fear of imprisonment, fear of torture,
fear ofdeath, fear of losing friends, family,
property or means of livelihood, fear of poverty,
fear of isolation, fear of failure. A most insidious
form of fear is that which masquerades as common
sense or even wisdom, condemning as foolish,
reckless, insignificant or futile the small,
daily acts of courage which help to preserve
man's self-respect and inherent human dignity.
It is not easy for a people conditioned by fear
under the iron rule of the principle that might
is right to free themselves from the enervating
miasma of fear. Yet even under the most crushing
state machinery courage rises up again and again,
for fear is not the natural state of civilized
man.
The wellspring of courage and endurance in the
face of unbridled power is generally a firm
belief in the sanctity of ethical principles
combined with a historical sense that despite
all setbacks the condition of man is set on
an ultimate course for both spiritual and material
advancement. It is his capacity for self-improvement
and self-redemption which most distinguishes
man from the mere brute. At the root of human
responsibility is the concept of peffection,
the urge to achieve it, the intelligence to
find a path towards it, and the will to follow
that path if not to the end at least the distance
needed to rise above individual limitations
and environmental impediments. It is man's vision
of a world fit for rational, civilized humanity
which leads him to dare and to suffer to build
societies free from want and fear. Concepts
such as truth, justice and compassion cannot
be dismissed as trite when these are often the
only bulwarks which stand against ruthless power.
|