ELITISTS: ELITES IN MYANMAR VIA THEORETICAL EXPLANATION

NYEYN NYEYN THANT AUNGPOLITICAL SCIENCE

UNIVERSITY OF MANDALAY

CONTENTS • INTRODUCTION • PARETO : THE MIND AND SOCIETY • MOSCA : THE RULING CLASS• ROBERTO MICHEL : IRON LAW OF OLIGARCHY • CASE STUDY • CONCLUSION • DISCUSSION

RESEARCH QUESTION

•DOES THE ROLE OF ELITE IN MYANMAR MEET THE CRITERIA OF THE THEORETICAL EXPLANATION OF ELITISTS ?

INTRODUCTION

THE STUDY OF ELITE GROUPS WHO CONTROLLED THE POWER

THE MANNER IN WHICH THE POWER IS OBTAINED AND MAINTAINED

THE INTERACTION BETWEEN THE RULING GROUPS AND THE MASSES

VILFREDO PARETOSOCIAL ELITES

• PSYCHOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF HUMAN BEHAVIOR INTO THE HUMAN IMPULSES • “THE RESIDUES” ( THE UNVARYING INSTINCTS ) & “ THE DERIVATIVES”

( RATIONALIZATION OF BEHAVIOR ) • GIVING INDEX ACCORDING TO THE CAPACITY OF INDIVIDUALS • LABELS • TWO STRATA 1. LOWER STRATUM , NON-ELITE 2. HIGHER STRATUM (A.) GOVERNING & (B.) NON-GOVERNING

CIRCULATION OF ELITES

• INTERMIX ( CLASS CIRCULATION ) • VELOCITY OF CIRCULATION • THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CAPACITY & LABEL • POTENT CAUSE OF DISTURBANCE IN THE EQUILIBRIUM IS “THE ACCUMULATION OF

SUPERIOR ELEMENT IN THE LOWER CLASS OR THE INFERIOR ELEMENT IN THE HIGHER CLASS”

• VIRTUE OF CLASS CIRCULATION , GOVT. = FLOW OF A RIVER • THE LEADING OF REVOLUTION

CASE STUDY : MYANMAR

ParetoSocial elites

Human impulses : Yes But the Derivatives :

weak

Two strata : complicated

Culture of giving index : too much

Circulation of class

Intermix : rarely

arose from the lower

class

Potent cause : yes

But not from the bottom

Eg. 1950s

Difference between label and capacity :

not so much clear

Virtue of class

circulation : Yes

MOSCA RULED BY MINORITY

• TWO CLASSES ONE RULES & ONE IS RULED • 2 POLITICAL FACTS THAT LOOM FAR LARGER IN APPEARANCE THAN IN REALITY • 1ST 1 INDIVIDUAL WHO IS CHIEF AMONG THE LEADERS OF THE RULING ELITES AS

A WHOLE AND STANDS AT THE HELM OF THE STATE ( BUT NOT ALWAYS THE PERSON WHO HOLD SUPREME POWER ACCORDING TO LAW )

• 2ND PRESSURES FROM THE DISCONTENT OF THE RULED MASS & FROM THE PASSIONS THEY ARE SWAYED , EXERT A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF POLICIES ON THE RULING , POLITICAL , CLASS

• THE VARYING STRUCTURE OF THE RULING CLASS HAS A PREPONDERANT IMPORTANCE IN DETERMINING THE POLITICAL TYPE AND LEVEL OF CIVILIZATION

• THE RELATION BETWEEN THE HEADSHIP AND THE SYSTEM OF A STATE • CONCERT FORM

POLITICAL FORMULA

• INTERACTION

• THE EBB AND FLOW BETWEEN THE UPPER AND CERTAIN PART OF THE LOWER

CLASSES

• POLITICAL FORMULA BELIEFS, SENTIMENTS, HABITS AND INTERESTS, LEGAL

& MORAL BASIS OR PRINCIPLES

Only the 1st fact used to be happened Eg. The emergence of new kings

The relation between headship and the system of the state : In theory YES ( eg. U Nu ) , in practice only the elite portraying

Concert form : using too much

Political formula

Governing elite Rule with Buddhist

culture

Non governing elite Make the culture

spread

The majority Ruled and practiced the

Buddhism in very political way

Mostly Buddhism

MICHELS THE POWER OF LEADERS

• ALL OBJECTIVE CRITICISM OF THE PARTY TAKEN AS A PERSONAL AFFRONT• WHEN IN ANY ORGANIZATIONS, THE OLIGARCHY HAS ATTAINED

THE ADVANCED STAGE, THE LEADERS BECOME TO IDENTIFY WITH THEMSELVES, NOT MERELY THE PARTY INSTITUTIONS, BUT EVEN THE PARTY PROPERTY , THIS PHENOMENON BEING COMMON BOTH TO THE PARTY AND THE STATE .

IRON LAW OF OLIGARCHY • LEGAL ORDER • THE DOMINANCE OF A POLITICAL CLASS COMPACTING FOR SUPREMACY • DYNAMICALLY NOT QUANTITATIVELY • EVERY SYSTEM OF LEADERSHIP IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE ESSENTIAL

POSTULATES OF DEMOCRACY BUT THE PRINCIPLE CAUSE OF DEMOCRATIC PARTIES IS TO BE FOUND IN TECHNICAL INDISPENSABILITY OF LEADERSHIP

• THE LEADERS ARISE SPONTANEOUSLY THEIR FUNCTIONS ARE ACCESSORY AND GRATUITOUS

• BECAME PROFESSIONAL LEADERS STABLE & IRREMOVABLE

POST COLONIAL PERIOD – PRESENT

Personal affront1948-1962

Later 2010

Supremacy

All the time

Later 2010 seem to be democratic

way

Conquest for legal order

Discontent of the majority till

2010 But slightly

discontent but in a more

democratic path nowadays

LEADERSHIP 1950s stagnant in spontaneous stage

1970s – seemed to be stable and irremovable Unfortunately it was dictatorship 2010s Hope to be professional But removable

• IT IS ORGANIZATION WHICH GIVE BIRTH TO THE DOMINION OF THE ELECTED OVER ELECTORS, OF THE MANDATARIES OVER MANDATORS , OF THE DELEGATES OVER DELEGATORS ,WHO SAYS ORGANIZATION , SAYS OLIGARCHY ( PSYCHOLOGY OF ORGANIZATION )

• EVERY PARTY ORGANIZATION REPRESENT THE OLIGARCHICAL POWER GROUNDED UPON THE DEMOCRATIC BASIS

• THE FORMATION OF THE VARIOUS FORM OF OLIGARCHY WITHIN THE DEMOCRACIES IS THE OUTCOME OF ORGANIC NECESSITY

• NOT TO DISCUSS WHETHER IDEAL DEMOCRACY IS REALIZABLE, JUST TO DISCUSS IN WHAT DEGREE DEMOCRACY IS DESIRABLE , POSSIBLE AND REALIZABLE AT THE GIVEN MOMENT.

CONCLUSION

• THE ANSWER OF RESEARCH QUESTION IS “YES” • MORE SUITABLE WITH MOSCA AND MICHEL • CURRENT ELITES – STILL DYNAMICALLY • THE ROLE OF ELITE IS INEVITABLE IN MYANMAR • THE POLITICAL CULTURE • THE HIGHER THE CIVIC CULTURE , THE MORE PROFESSIONAL IN LEADERSHIP

Let’s discuss!!