Aung San Suu Kyi waves to the crowd in Burma, with her party celebrating a major victory in the by-elections. Christophe Archambault/AFP/Getty Images

The excitement on the streets of Rangoon is palpable, and who can deny their right to celebrate this moment? When I arrived on the Thai-Burma border four years ago, Aung San Suu Kyi was under house arrest, and over 2,000 political prisoners were behind bars. This week’s by-elections in Burma brings Daw Suu, as she is respectfully called, and 42 other members of her until-recently-banned party, the National League for Democracy (NLD) into the belly of the beast — Burma’s fledgling parliament.

There is real cause to celebrate — not in Burma’s apparent democratic transformation (which, for the record, remains to be seen), but in the very climate of public engagement in politics. The significance here is not the now 5 percent presence of the NLD in an otherwise military-dominated parliament, but the potential for people to move the political conversation from hushed whispers in a teashop corner to the classroom, the streets, and at the ballot box in 2015′s general election.

As Human Rights Watch’s David Scott Mathieson has pointed out, “The real danger of the by-elections is the overblown expectations many in the West have cast on them.” It is an opinion shared by many of my friends and colleagues in the Burma movement, who have kept the movement alive and well since the crushed student-led uprising of 1988, here on the Thai-Burma border, during the many years Daw Suu was locked up by the military regime. Some may feel the words of caution expressed in the interviews and op-eds of exiled movement leaders intend to dampen the mood of an otherwise celebratory occasion.

But there are plenty of reasons to remain skeptical. Daw Suu’s party will have just 43 out of approximately 600 seats in parliament (only 45 were contested in these by-elections). The parliament remains under the control of the military’s National Security and Defense Council, which holds the legal right to stage a coup should they feel their power is sufficiently threatened. Perhaps most significantly, as Zoya Phan and other leaders of Burma’s ethnic minority communities have emphasized, conflicts in Burma’s ethnic areas are far from over. While Daw Suu’s popularity among Burma’s diverse ethnic groups continues (as exhibited by her election to a largely ethnic Karen constituency in the Irrawaddy Delta), the significance of the election for the tens of thousands of ethnic people still displaced from civil war remains to be felt.

As Daw Suu herself said on the eve of elections: “An election alone is not going to change the country. It’s the people, a change in the spirit of our people, which will change our nation.” Getting people engaged in politics again — this is the reason Daw Suu has given time and time again when explaining her party’s decision to contest elections they knew would be far from free and fair. It cannot be denied that elections have provided a renewed sense of hope, a change in “spirit” if you will, the power of which should not be undervalued. As Daw Suu and other NLD leaders take their seats in parliament, however, the responsibility for the larger movement — not just the NLD and other pro-democracy ethnic political parties, but the next generation of community leaders from all ethnic areas of Burma — to mobilize the grassroots will be even greater.

As Ko Ko Gyi, a student leader in the 1988 uprising said recently, “We accept the parliamentary process, but we cannot rely on parliament alone.” While all eyes are on the new parliament, the significance of the elections will be determined by the ability of the wider democracy movement to foster “direct democracy” in the townships and villages as far as the mountains of Kachin and Shan states. In the past twenty years, much of this critical work — of fostering the next generation of Burma’s democracy movement leaders — through trainings on community organizing and nonviolent action, has taken place on the Thai-Burma border. Ironically, with the focus on the spirited streets of Rangoon and on parliamentary politics in the new capitol Naypyidaw, there is markedly less attention and funding to support the critical cross-border work of organizations based in Burma’s neighboring countries.

Last week, on the eve of the election, I was facilitating a training for a group of 25 young community organizers representing a dozen ethnic communities throughout Burma. Some had traveled three days to reach the Thai-Burma border to attend a one-month training on nonviolent movement-building. “What would real democracy look like in your community?” It was this question that instigated the most passionate and insightful responses. Interestingly enough, none of the responses included “elections,” per se. In some of their communities, Kachin state, for example, the elections were cancelled, due to ongoing civil war. In others, pro-democracy ethnic political parties have parliamentary seats but have yet to respond to the most pressing issues in the community — forced labor and land confiscation as a result of destructive development projects, for example. Ultimately the list they came up with included local government responsiveness to community demands, reduced human rights abuses, freedom of association for political parties and community-based organizations, and a rise in living standards. These are the things they plan to monitor in their communities over the coming months, and of course, will be organizing around. They won’t be waiting around until the next general election in 2015 — there’s a lot of work to be done in the meantime.

Changing the world for good doesn’t depend on money, status, or political power. It hinges, instead, on ordinary people unleashing their creativity and gumption.

This is not an airy theory for Jack Healey. It’s something he has experienced throughout his life. The former executive director of Amnesty International USA took another opportunity to spread this news this past Monday night when he spoke to a group of students at DePaul University in Chicago.

His message to them: Shake off any powerlessness that might be holding you back from making a difference. At a time when the concern for human rights has been largely sidelined in the national conversation, tap your power to work for those rights in their most comprehensive sense: from jobs to justice. In short, take action for a world where everyone matters.

Healey’s presentation was, though, more than pithy marching orders. It was a stream of stories—weighty, startling, profound, and occasionally humorous—which, drawn from his fifty years as an agent for change, made the point repeatedly that people power works.

Healey is most famous for pioneering rock activism. When he came to Amnesty in 1981, he envisioned increasing the organization’s membership; building its capacity to respond to human rights violations worldwide; and contributing to mainstreaming the notion of human rights. He decided to do this through music.

In the 1980s and 1990s Healey brought some of the world’s biggest rock stars together to tour for human rights, including Sting, U2, Bruce Springsteen, Youssou N’dour, Tracy Chapman, and Peter Gabriel. On the 40th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, for example, he organized “Human Rights Now,” a tour featuring concerts in 20 cities across the planet, including New Delhi, Harare, Abidjan, São Paulo, Buenos Aires, Budapest, Montreal, Barcelona, and Tokyo. This initiative highlighted massive human rights violations and brought a message of hope and empowerment. It was an historic outpouring of music for social change experienced by a million people on nearly every continent.

Born in 1938 in Pittsburgh into a large Irish family of coal miners and steel mill workers, Healey became involved in the Civil Rights Movement during the 1960s as a theology student in Washington, D.C. During that period he attended a talk by Dorothy Day, co-founder of the Catholic Worker movement who, he now says, had a pivotal impact on him. So did a comment by theologian Rabbi Abraham Heschel, who said that the key to wisdom was curiosity. Healey remembers saying to himself at the time, “I’m going to be curious, because I want to get some of that wisdom!”

Jack’s curiosity led him all over the world. Ordained a Catholic priest in 1966, Healey directed a campus ministry center in Maryland. After leaving the priesthood in 1968, he organized walk-a-thons throughout the U.S. in which hundreds of thousands of young people raised millions of dollars for the fight against world hunger; worked with comedian and activist Dick Gregory; and served as director of the Peace Corps in southern Africa for five years. These experiences prepared him for his twelve-year tenure at Amnesty, where he led the organization into an era of unprecedented growth and effectiveness. Under his leadership, Amnesty strengthened its ability to address torture, the death penalty, political imprisonment, and other human rights abuses.

Healey left Amnesty in 1993. He now directs the Human Rights Action Center in Washington, D.C., where he continues to campaign for justice and human dignity.

In 1999 Healey traveled to Rangoon to meet with Aung San Suu Kyi, the Nobel Peace Prize winner whose party, the National League for Democracy, had decisively won the 1990 national election in Burma. In response, she was placed under house arrest by the military, where she remained for 15 out of the next 21 years, until her most recent release in November 2010. After their 1999 meeting, he returned to the U.S. committed to help free her and to support the pro-democracy movement in Burma. He organized a variety of projects, including concerts, a compact disk, and thirty online videos to help raise the visibility of her case and the struggle in Burma. He also played a key role in the U.S. Campaign for Burma.

These days he continues to work on a long-term project to raise the visibility of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, including a campaign to have it printed in every passport. He helped produce a little animated video (above) to get his point across. Having these rights written down and widely recognized, he stresses, can be the basis of innumerable movements for change.

For as long as I’ve known Jack Healey, I’ve seen that this is how his mind works. He possesses a comprehensive vision of a more just and nonviolent world, but he doesn’t tarry much with the abstract ideal. (As he said the other night, “We know injustice when we see it. Justice is another matter.”) Instead, he is endlessly devising creative maneuvers designed to mess with the current cultural arrangements and to prod us to think concretely about fixing what’s broken—and then getting to it.

Conflict and abuses against Burma’s ethnic minorities often gets looked over, not just by the international media, but also in Burma’s major cities like Rangoon. In central Burma, the fighting seems like a distant issue. Especially with such acute censorship of the media, the reality of the situation is often misunderstood and underestimated by people living outside the conflict areas.

Generation Wave, an activist group composed of hip hop singers, graffiti artists, poets and other hip urban youth, wants this mentality to change. Peace and an end to militarization not only concerns the Karen, Kachin, Shan, or other ethnic groups, it is something that affects all Burmese people. Last week they staged several actions in Rangoon as part of their new campaign “Let the Flowers Bloom, But Not Bullets.”

They received support from top activists such as the 88 Generation leaders, as well as some of Burma’s most popular rock stars. Rock singer Aung La and his band Reason supported the Peace Campaign by wearing T-shirts during their Valentine’s Day concert. Generation Wave also did a prayer action at the Shwedagon Pagoda in Rangoon on February 14 and passed out roses, stickers, and talked with visitors. They also worked with the singer Linnith to release a new song calling for peace in Kachin state. (Listen to it here.)

The campaign was received with much popularity, with lots of young and old Burmese sharing the news about the actions. The T-shirts are becoming a real hit with more people wanting to buy them. The Burmese authorities didn’t respond to the action. Instead they have chosen to wait and see what what the next part of the campaign will be like.

Often Burma’s youth have to struggle simply to get an education and find ways to meet their basic needs. It is incredibly inspiring to see young people doing what they can to stand up and promote peace for all. However, the end is hardly near. The conflict is growing in Kachin areas, with the Burma Army is still attacking Kachin Independence Army troops and civilians with the aim of wiping out Kachin resistance. The conflict has resulted in the displacement of 55,000 to 70,000 people in Kachin areas. Another concern is the sustainability of the ceasefire agreements in eastern Burma, as it is yet uncertain how long they will last. Since the agreements were signed there have been reports of the Burma Army moving in troops in Karen areas, continuing to fire mortars and taking food from villagers. The Karen National Union is becoming more skeptical as well, saying that there is not a ceasefire yet and conditions still need to be discussed.

At the heart of the conflicts is the issue of what a unified Burma should look like. Generation Wave’s actions come shortly after February 12, or what is known as Union Day in Burma. It is a day to commemorate the signing of the Panglong Agreement, which 65 years ago laid out the pathway for a federal government in which ethnic groups would have equality and the right to self-determination. This agreement was never implemented. Since then, Burma’s minorities have continually fought for a political system that respects their ethnic, religious, and cultural identity.

It is not common to see Burma’s ethnic majority, the Burmans, take public action for the rights of other ethnic groups, so this new campaign adds hope that Burma’s new generation might be the one to finally heal ties.

“I believe that our campaign could wake the people who are thinking our country has already changed. Actually if there is no true peace there can’t be any development or democracy in this country. So we want to urge people to be involved in the peace process and ensure real change,” says Moe Thway of Generation Wave.

When Secretary Clinton left Burma on December 2nd, she left the ball in President Thein Sein’s court. The trip was a gift in and of itself, and Clinton made it clear that if Burma wants to continue to improve ties with the United States it has to take clear measures of reform such as the release of all political prisoners, an end to hostilities in ethnic areas, and lasting democratic reform. Only then will the US respond positively. In their meetings, President Thein Sein said he want to implement these reforms and Aung San Suu Kyi has even expressed belief in Thein Sein’s sincerity; however, the question remains how much power does Thein Sein actually have?

Some have compared him with De Klerk or Gorbachev, and Thein Sein might genuinely want reform, but his powers are limited. Constitutionally the military still has complete autonomy in not just it’s own affairs, but also has vast powers over the three branches of government. The powers of the Commander-in-Chief and the National Defense and Security Council are just as powerful, or even more so than the Parliament and the President. Constitutional expert David Williams has said “The whole constitution is based on a “wait and see” strategy: if the civilian government does what the Tatmadaw [the armed forces] wants, then it will be allowed to rule; if not, then not.”

Over the past few months we have seen the reach of the military in politics. Authorities had announced that political prisoners would be released before the ASEAN Summit in November; however, the release never came. What was revealed eventually, was that the National Defense and Security Council never approved it. It has been a common tactic for Burma to release prisoners before big international meetings or dignitary visits, and so it came as a great surprise that no prisoners were released before Secretary Clinton’s visit. Instead, the morning Secretary Clinton arrived civilian homes were burned down by government troops in Kachin state.

It is clear that the ruling powers are a divided group. In a background briefing, a Senior State Department Official stated how there are three groups: those who support reform, those who are fence-sitters, and “There is a group that is opposed to reform and they – some of those individuals are – hold key positions inside the government.” Burma’s previously most well known “moderate” Khin Nyunt was sentenced and thrown in house arrest in 2005.

A week ago, President Thein Sein ordered the military to stop fighting with the Kachin Independence Army in Northern Burma where there has been heavy fighting in the past six and half months. However, there have been ongoing reports of attacks against civilians with the Burma Army still bringing in reinforcements. Moreover, they have been removing soldiers who have become sympathetic with Kachin communities and replacing them with new soldiers. These are not actions that show the military is ready to stop any time soon.

For activists in Burma’s cities it means they can’t trust the veneer of liberalization that Thein Sein wants the world to believe is underway. Thein Sein may place nice with Aung San Suu Kyi, but Burma’s authorities still aren’t that nice to others. Last week, a government aligned group of Buddhist elders ordered a prominent monk to leave his monastery because of political activities.  Ashin Pyinyar Thiha is very well respected throughout the country and has given speeches at the National League for Democracy and let Aung San Suu Kyi hold events at the monastery. He also met with Secretary Clinton when she visiting Rangoon. For those working for the protection of ethnic peoples, the situation is far worse. In November, two community health workers in Karen areas were captured by the Burma Army and tortured. All Thein Sein’s talks of change can’t undo the reality that the military still maintains overarching power. Until that changes, civil society will still be in a dangerous situation.

Burma is now seeing it’s own version of the Occupy movement. On Tuesday, a group of monks staged an occupation of the Maha Myat Muni Pagoda in Mandalay, which is one of the most revered Buddhist sites in Burma. They made their presence and intent known by hanging large banners that read “We want freedom,” “Free all political prisoners” and “Stop civil war now.” Throughout the day they gave speeches to the expanding crowd of monks, civilians, and secret police. People donated water, food and other supplies and sent it up to the occupiers via ropes.

This protest comes at a crucial time as Burma’s ruling officials are trying to win over the international community into believing that real democratic reforms are happening. On Monday, there was expected to be an additional release of political prisoners, however, the releases never happened. Despite growing conflict and human rights abuses in the country, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) granted Burma a huge prize by announcing on Tuesday that Burma could take the chairmanship of the regional body in 2014. So Burma’s political prisoners stay locked up, and even more get detained. Since the elections last year, Burma’s political scene has been a mixture of minimal changes followed by brutalities against activists and ethnic minorities.

This current protest is a direct challenge to the regime’s propaganda of reform. The monks’ demands are simple: a release of all political prisoners, an end to attacks against ethnic communities, genuine talks of national reconciliation and lifting of censorship laws that prohibit monks from preaching freely.

This is the largest public demonstration of monks since the 2007 Saffron Revolution and this protest aims to reignite that public memory. It is strategically important that they are holding this protest in Mandalay, which is Burma’s second largest city and is also where the country’s largest congregation of Buddhist monks resides. Many young monks have eagerly listened to the words of those protesting and reigniting their fervor can have huge consequences. There are as many monks in Burma as there are soldiers.

Local authorities don’t want to risk the public backlash that cracking down against the monks would cause, and so have been working to suppress the protest by utilizing elderly Buddhist clergy. These abbot monks have been pressuring the protestors to move locations and stop their actions. A negotiation was reached to move to another monastery, and when they did over 1,000 people followed them. The monks have vowed to continue their protest, but it is uncertain how long police will let it continue.

One of the leaders, Ashin Sopaka, is a friend of mine and I know he does not give up easily. He understands the risk of such an action, but also recognizes the importance of publicly testing Burma’s leaders to see if they are still just the same generals but in civilian clothing. You can stay up to date on what is happening via this Storify.

• Hundreds of Yemeni women on Wednesday set fire to traditional female veils to protest the government’s brutal crackdown against the country’s popular uprising, as overnight clashes in the capital and another city killed 25 people.

• People in the city of Homs and nearby areas of northwest Syria staged a general strike on Wednesday over President Bashar al-Assad’s intensifying military crackdown on protesters, and two were killed in one town.

• In Georgia, Atlanta police have arrested more than 50 protesters who had been camping out in Woodruff Park for the past two weeks.

• About 4,000 jobless graduates staged a second day of peaceful demonstrations on Tuesday in Morocco’s business hub Casablanca to demand public sector jobs.

• In New York City, more than 100 students, teachers and educational activists occupied the city’s Board of Education meeting Tuesday night to protest the city’s education policies, including budget cutbacks, layoffs, large class sizes and an overemphasis on standardized testing.

• At least seven protesters were killed in the capital city of Sana’a Tuesday, as Saleh told the U.S. ambassador that he would sign a deal to step down—an offer he has made several times before.

• Lawyers in Algeria went on strike Tuesday to protest against proposed changes in the organisation of the profession which they say will limit their independence and powers in court.

• Police in Myanmar halted a demonstration on Thursday by about 60 landless farmers, a rare protest that tests the new civilian government’s commitment to reforms after decades of brutal suppression of dissent.

• In San Francisco, more than 1,000 protesters rallied outside a President Obama fundraiser at the W Hotel on Tuesday to call on Obama to block the proposed Keystone XL tar sands oil pipeline.

Zarganar speaking at the birthday celebration of detained democracy leader Min Ko Naing

Humor has always been a major tactic used to illustrate truth in Burma. It comes as no surprise then that after his release, political prisoner and well-known comedian Zarganar has unleashed an onslaught of jokes aimed at Burma’s “new” government. When asked what he thought about President Thein Sein’s efforts at national reconciliation, he said it was like “applying make-up to a paralyzed old woman and sending her out into the street.” Zarganar’s point is a significant one—how much can you dress up something to look like democracy when it is still a broken military system?

There has been a lot of discussion about whether Burma is finally on the path to reform, now that Aung San Suu Kyi is free, and a parliament is in place. However, it is important to look beyond the facade and see the big picture. The major reason why the National League for Democracy and many ethnic groups did not support the 2010 election was because of the new Constitution. Amongst other undemocratic problems, the Constitution is far from democratic and was drafted so that the military has broad and vague powers, and is free from parliamentary control.  Moreover, the eruption of conflict in Northern Burma as well as in Eastern Burma is largely because ethnic groups feel that they do not have equal rights in this “new” government.

The systematic abuses that have been committed against ethnic communities since Thein Sein came to power in March are a strong signal that the military in Burma still has supreme power and autonomy from any control. Even if the Parliament weren’t so heavily dominated by former-military officials and regime cronies, it would still not have the ability to stop mass atrocities. Burma Lawyer’s Council recently released a briefer about how a system of impunity has been embedded into the constitution that subverts the rule of law in the country. Military officers and government officials can still get away with egregious crimes, since there is very little to stop them.

President Thein Sein might be viewed as a reformer, but it is uncertain how much actual power he has with hardliners and top generals still holding powerful positions. There have been periods of small relief like this in the past where Aung San Suu Kyi is able to travel, talks are held, and hope is possible. And yet, each time those hopes were dashed when hardliners made efforts to silence moderates. Furthermore, Thein Sein has been in the inner circle of Than Shwe, the previous dictator, since 1992, so it is likely to assume that even though he may say he wants reforms, Than Shwe is not far behind him pulling the strings.

Even with all the talk of reform, the Parliament does not seem eager to lift even the most basic restrictive laws. On August 30th the Parliament rejected a bill to revoke the Emergency Provisions Act (EPA), an oppressive law that has kept Burma in a state of emergency for decades and gives authorities sweeping powers.

Over 200 political prisoners were released last week, but there are still around 1,700 in prison. At least 350 of those political prisoners are being kept in jail because of the Emergency Provisions Act. Burmese officials can release political prisoners, but the EPA and other ridiculous laws are still in place, and so they can arrest and lock people up again.

Even when good laws are in place they are not often followed. Burma is a signatory to the UN Convention for the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), but Burma’s military still uses rape as a weapon of war against ethnic women. Burma did pass last week a law allowing labor unions, but we have still yet to see whether it will actually be followed.

Nevertheless, it is obvious that some Burmese officials are working to try and at least present some face of reform to the international community. With important decisions happening at the UN and the ASEAN Summit this fall, Burmese officials want to win over as much support as they can.

Activists praying during the 4th anniversary of the Saffron Revolution

While the international community isn’t paying attention to the ongoing atrocities and humanitarian crisis in ethnic areas, they are alert to what is happening in Rangoon, the main city. This in some respects has given civil society groups room to operate. Aung San Suu Kyi’s party the National League for Democracy has been able to organize and hold gatherings.

Other activist groups have also begun to test the limits. Last month, on the 4th anniversary of the Saffron Revolution, a group of 200 protestors marched to Sule Pagoda, only to be eventually dispersed by 400 riot police. At the end of August, the major student group in Burma, the All Burma Federation of Student Unions, that has had to operate underground for years, stated that they want to become a legal organization. “We just want to test how the government will respond to our activity,” said the group’s spokesperson.

Another youth group, Generation Wave, has also started to have a public face in the country. Hip hop star and former political prisoner Zayar Thaw, a founding member of Generation Wave, has been very active since his release—calling for more youth to join. These brave activists are courageously testing the political waters of the country. There have been no mass arrests of activists recently, though individual arrests and harassment still happen.

Right now activists face the nerve-wracking situation of organizing, and then hoping that another day goes by that they don’t get arrested. When international attention fades will urban activists face the same terrifying fate as their ethnic counterparts?

Ever since Burmese resistance leader Aung San Suu Kyi was released from her house arrest last year by the ruling military junta, I have been trying to understand why she hasn’t given the people of Burma any clear calls for acts of resistance. For Burmese people around the world opposed to the regime, she is an unparalleled source of spiritual authority. Lately, I’ve been thinking of this especially in light of her recent Reith Lectures, which were controversial for her statements that the movement may possibly have to be violent as well as nonviolent. Why would she say this? Is it a tactical threat to the regime? Or is it part of her grand strategy to embrace armed ethnic nationalities? Having been a part of the effort to rid Burma of its oppressors since the nationwide uprising in August of 1988, I took this as a shock. She hadn’t ever spoken quite like this.

The first thing to understand, I think, is that she’s addressing audiences both inside and outside of Burma—and mainly inside. In the lectures, she identified her cause with the full spectrum of dissidents—violent and nonviolent—thereby connecting with ordinary people, including the ethnic nationals, inside the country.

Right now, she’s walking a very thin line between the military and the pro-democracy movement. She could end up back under house arrest or in jail at any time if she does or says anything that causes people to mobilize or take action against the regime. She cannot speak directly to the people inside Burma to stage nonviolent acts. No domestic journalists would publish such a thing, for fear of censorship and imprisonment. The regime, however, allows her to speak with outside media for two reasons: first, there is tremendous international pressure to do so, and, second, ordinary people inside Burma will have a hard time even gaining access to them, much less use them to start a revolution.

Nevertheless, I believe she’s using speeches and interviews with foreign media to indirectly communicate with the people of Burma. But that isn’t to say that people inside the country are getting her message clearly. They probably don’t even realize that she’s talking to them. After seeing Daw Suu’s lectures at Reith multiple times, the question that came to my mind was this: how many people inside Burma are even aware of this, and how many actually got a chance to see or listen to her lectures? This is the only chance she has to speak freely to them.

To the outside world, she’s publicizing the poor conditions and challenges that dissidents and pro-democracy movement inside Burma have been facing since 1988. The majority of Burma’s 55 million people are barely surviving on under $1 a day, the country’s media is utterly controlled by the regime, and less than 2 percent has access to the (severely censored) internet. They have been gravely smashed by one of the most brutal, oppressive, and corrupt regimes in the world for many decades.

Meanwhile, she’s also reaching out to several generations of Burmese people inside the country, encouraging them to participate in this pro-democracy movement by following the paths of iconic and courageous dissidents and pro-democracy leaders. To this end, she took time to mention prominent leaders and members of the National League for Democracy, most of whom have been imprisoned multiple times, and spoke of the recent history of the NLD. This older generation stood against the regime and, despite all they’ve suffered, is still trying to. By invoking them, she’s reminding the Burmese people what resistance looks like, and that they should not be afraid to exercise their freedom. She discussed what drives a person to dissent, even knowing the sacrifices involved. She also spoke about the NLD youth who come to the office each day, reminding them that now it’s their turn.

And while she didn’t denounce the possibility of violence, she stressed that the movement’s true weapons are the fates of its people, and that their true armor is their passion—our passion. While she won’t disown those who have tried military options, what she calls for now is a movement built on something stronger than that.

With Daw Suu free again, and keeping in mind her reminder to keep working for freedom, I think it’s time for the Burmese pro-democracy movement to develop new kinds of tactics. We need to see the situation strategically, on a large scale, and formulate our tactics accordingly, rather than improvising actions on the fly. Daw Suu isn’t in a position where she can tell us what to do, specifically or directly. We have to figure it out for ourselves and act collectively.

There are many pillars that are supporting the military regime’s power in Burma, and we need to carefully and seriously study them, understanding their relationships and dynamics. More importantly, we need to find ways to educate and mobilize young people in Burma about this. How, at the individual and community levels, do we each help keep the regime in place? What can people do, both inside and outside Burma, to weaken its structure of support?

I have one idea, at least. Currently, I’m developing a project to bring thousands of low-cost radios to rural and remote areas in Burma, on which people can listen to broadcasts coming from overseas, thanks to networks like the BBC, VOA, RFA, and Democratic Voice of Burma. But there’s so much more that needs to be done. I hope that, for all the controversy it has caused, Daw Suu’s lectures will remind the people of Burma that the power is ours to take back.

• Tens of thousands of anti-regime demonstrators marched through Yemeni streets on Tuesday to condemn what they said were government attacks on protesters the day before.

• Thousands of demonstrators, including Islamists, held peaceful rallies in Rabat, Casablanca and Tangiers Sunday to demand greater political reforms and social justice in Morocco.

• Syrian troops and militiamen loyal to President Bashar al-Assad killed 16 people in attacks in the city of Homs on Tuesday, residents said, an escalation of a crackdown against a focal point for pro-democracy protests.

• The Israeli navy intercepted a French boat carrying pro-Palestinian activists as the vessel attempted to breach Israel’s naval blockade of the Gaza Strip on Tuesday.

• Thousands took to the streets of Bissau Tuesday for the second rally in five days to demand the resignation of Prime Minister Carlos Gomes Junior, accused of hindering an assassination probe.

• More than 3,000 democracy supporters led by Aung San Suu Kyi marched Tuesday in Myanmar’s biggest city in honor of her father, the nation’s independence hero. The short march was the biggest public demonstration since 2007, when the military junta launched a bloody crackdown on pro-democracy protesters.

• Over the weekend, residents of Southwest Ranches, Florida protested the proposed construction of a privately run immigration detention center.

• In the Philippines, college students in Manila and Quezon City walked out of their classes on Tuesday to protest what they called the Aquino administration’s neglect of the education sector.

• Dozens of Romanians protested Tuesday against a Canadian company’s plans to open a gold mine in Transylvania and called on the culture minister to resign over his support to this project.

• The two-week strike by 120,000 members of the National Union of Metalworkers’ of South Africa (NUMSA) ended over the weekend when union members accepted a three-year contract from the Steel and Engineering Federation of South Africa (SEIFSA), the main metal employers’ federation in South Africa.

BBC’s Reith Lecture series with Aung San Suu Kyi won’t be aired until tomorrow, but already there is a flurry of discussion about whether she is changing her renowned position on non-violence. The lectures were secretly recorded in Burma and then presented before a studio audience this past week before they air for the general public. The Nobel Laureate stunned the audience when she implied “it’s possible” she would not rule out violent resistance as an effective way of creating change in Burma. She later expanded on her position and said, “I have said in the lectures I do not hold to non-violence for moral reasons, but practical and political reasons.”

This may seem shocking coming from the woman who is viewed as the Gandhi of Burma, but the reality is that she is not changing her position. She has always held a view of resistance that centrally values the process of the struggle, “the revolution of the spirit.” However, by saying she doesn’t rule out violent struggle, she is being honest and, importantly, not discrediting the ethnic armed resistance occurring in Burma at present.

Aung San Suu Kyi’s father was the respected military leader Aung San who was the main instrumental leader in bringing an end to colonial rule in Burma. He worked to unite groups across the country and prepare for democratic change, but was assassinated before his vision could be fulfilled. Coming from this background, she has an understanding that military use in and of itself is not wholly corruptible; it is the mindset about military use that is important. She said in her 1991 essay “Freedom from Fear”:

The words used by Jawaharlal Nehru to describe Mahatama 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.’

Aung San Suu Kyi’s goal is very similar to her father’s. She wants to bring all ethnic groups and sectors of society together to find a peaceful means of reconciliation with which to build a democratic society. Aung San Suu Kyi, even though she is a proponent of non-violence, cannot dismiss the efforts of Burma’s armed ethnic resistance. Whenever she is free she works to reach out to Burma’s ethnic communities. In response to this attention, many ethnic leaders say they heartily support and share Aung San Suu Kyi’s vision of peaceful national reconciliation.

Because of their remote locations, Burma’s ethnic armed resistance does not receive a lot of international attention and often are labeled as “rebel armies” without understanding the nuances of the situation. Burma’s various ethnic groups comprise roughly 30% of the population, and almost all have their own armies with which they have been using to protect their people and push for basic rights within the country. Burma’s military regime, dominated by the main Burman ethnic group, has always responded to Burma’s ethnic communities with severe human rights abuses. Burma’s military regime only cares about destroying opposition and controlling natural resources, and since the generals hold racist views against the ethnic communities, they feel no qualms in using widespread tactics such as sexual violence, forced labor, torture, and extrajudicial killings. Around 3,700 villages have been destroyed in eastern Burma in the past 15 years. For more information, the recent UN Human Rights Council Resolution on Burma gives a good overview of the human rights situation. The realities of oppression that ethnic communities in Burma face are on a different level than what people in the cities of Rangoon and Mandalay live with and Aung San Suu Kyi recognizes she needs to have a holistic view of the country.

A good friend of mine from the Karen ethnic group told me once:

We have little or no choice, we have to continue to resist and to try to protect our communities against the Burmese army who continue to rape and torture our family members.

This sentiment is a common one I often heard living and working with many ethnic groups on the Thai-Burma border. Their goal is protection of their families and communities.  They would prefer not to fight, but feel they do not have other options.

Before the recent outbreak of conflict in northern Burma’s Kachin area, tension had been building for a while between the Kachin Independence Army and the military regime. The Kachin Independence Army postponed fighting as long as possible. Again and again they reached out to the military regime for peaceful reconciliation that would allow ethnic people to have basic rights in the new government. However, their pleas for genuine peace and democracy were consistently rejected by the military.

Soon Aung San Suu Kyi will begin her tour outside of Rangoon, reaching audiences that might not share her non-violent approach to creating change in Burma. This is a huge gesture of reaching out to Burma’s diversity and trying to bring groups together. She sees the movement as one—armed and non-armed groups working together with the same goal of peace. While tactics may vary, what is shared between many armed and non-armed groups is a common attitude against vengeance and domination and a dedication for finding harmonious solutions that protect people.  She has not changed her position on being a proponent of non-violence, but in her work to unite Burma, she is also recognizing that fearlessness, truth, and action can be found in various ways.

In my post about Happy World—the short documentary about the absurdity of everyday life under the dictatorship in Burma—I forgot to mention several of the great bonus features, which, along with the movie, can all be enjoyed for free online. In an interview with the French news site Ownie, the filmmakers call their project an experiment in “hypervideo”—an artistic device that allows users to watch a video and “simultaneously receive a feed of related information, such as newspaper articles, data, etc.”

Tristan Mendes-France, the film’s on-screen narrator and co-director, graciously wrote a comment on my original post, pointing to some of these features. To begin, there’s an interactive map [click on photo above] of various Burmese dissident groups, an infographic explaining why the junta moved the capital without warning to a city in the middle-of-nowhere, sample pages of the state-run newspaper The New Light of Myanmar, one hour’s worth of Burma TV—or as the filmmakers call it Valium TV—and lots more, including loads of links to interesting articles that explain more of Burma’s troubled history.

Finally, and perhaps most indicative of their creativity, the filmmakers have created a hilarious web-application that cartoonishly censors your Twitter account. Amazingly, something different happens every time. Watch the Waging Nonviolence Twitter account getting censored and then share it with your friends. But don’t let all these fun features distract you from watching the movie!

Happy World Teaser (english) from Happy World on Vimeo.

What’s life like inside a closed authoritarian country like Burma? A few years ago, it may have been hard to answer that question. Then Burma VJ, the 2010 Oscar-nominated documentary, gave us a glimpse—but mainly from the perspective of dissidents trying to depose the ruling military junta. Now, a brilliant new French documentary called Happy World shows what life is like for the ordinary every-day Burmese citizen. The film’s subtitle says it all: “the dictatorship of the absurd.”

Rather than highlight the brutality already documented in Burma VJ, the filmmakers behind Happy World seem to have set out to make the point that every regime, no matter how seemingly evil, has weaknesses—many of which reside in the arbitrary and oftentimes laughable measures it takes to uphold a thin veil of power. For the Burmese junta it’s basing traffic patterns on horoscope readings, printing currency that’s divisible by the regime’s lucky number nine, and superstitiously forcing people to grow a shrub because its name (kyet-suu) is the inverse of democracy leader Suu Kyi.

All of these ridiculous actions could easily become the target of savvy activists, who by poking fun at the junta, weaken its credibility and grow a movement of resistance. It wouldn’t be surprising if campaigns like this were already underway. As John Jackson and Steve Crawshaw noted in their book Small Acts of Resistance, a clever currency designer working for the government in 1990 subtly and subversively planted an image of Aung Sang Suu Kyi onto new banknotes, as well as several other references to the pro-democracy uprising of 1988. Such acts of defiance and inspiring mischief have seemingly grown less and less isolated.

For their own part, the filmmakers managed to pull one over on the junta, no doubt embarrassing them in the process. By posing as dopey tourists—the only kind of foreigners allowed to visit the country—they captured amazing never-before-seen footage and broadcast it to the world for free.

The full 30-minute documentary, as well as a short making-of video, can be viewed here.

Last week, in a great interview with Irradwaddy, a newspaper started in 1993 by Burmese journalists living in exile, Gene Sharp offers his thoughts on the military intervention in Libya and why nonviolent resistance has not yet succeeded in Burma:

Q:Since Tunisia and Egypt, the protests in the region have changed. Libya’s uprising has become an armed revolt. Do you feel that—even with UN Security Council and Arab League support—it is right to intervene in Libya at this juncture?

A: It is not the course of action I would have chosen. I think the Libyan democrats did not do their homework in advance like the Egyptians did—in Egypt, they appeared to have a plan and studied quite some time in advance to develop a program of non-violence without fear, which brought them victory quite quickly. In Libya, this appears not to have been the case. The Libyans have gotten in over their heads, and should have expected the type of repression that Gaddafi is capable of.

People who are realistic about the power of political defiance know that if it is a threat, the regime will see it that way and will fight back. The regime will jail and beat and kill, and that is a sign that what you are doing is threatening the regime.

Dictators can beat you with violence, if you fight on those terms, and of course the rebels cannot defeat the Gaddafi regime on the level of armed force. So they are left to call in help from outside, which cannot give them the empowerment or victory they seek.

Q:Do you think that when legitimate peaceful protest—such as in Burma—is met with state violence, the protesters then have the right to self-defense? To fight back? To seek alliances with sympathizers in the country’s police and army? To appeal for international military support, as the Libyan rebels have done?

A: I think it is an unfortunate choice that people make. It is predictable that your opponent will have the means of violence, the means of oppression. If you get someone else to come and help you, they will come with their interests, and potentially turn your country into a battlefield. Even if they help defeat the oppressor, it will not result in empowerment. People will not be ready to fight the next oppressor who tries to take over the country. In contrast, if the Egyptian military tries again to take control, the people know how to counter this, they have the sense of empowerment, of their own power.

Ultimately, in any non-violent resistance, you have to plan, you have to study. You have to know what the hell you are doing.

 

I couldn’t agree more and am thrilled that Sharp hasn’t backed this war like so many others in the progressive world. This is exactly the kind of stance that those of us who believe that nonviolence is the most effective way to stop dictators and end repression should be taking.

And here is Sharp’s take on the situation in Burma:

Q: Why in your view has non-violent resistance failed, so far, to undermine military rule in Burma? What are the factors differentiating Burma from recent changes in Egypt and Tunisia, as well as older examples such as the Color Revolutions in the former Soviet bloc, Serbia in 2000 and the Philippines in 1986?

A: I think there are a few explanations for that. For a start, many of the opposition groups, the various nationality groups such as the Karen, Mon and others, they all had their armies and mini-armies, and they thought they would be weakened by departing from those and going over to non-violence, or “political defiance” as it was known in Burma. Other groups, such as the All Burma Students Democratic Front (ABSDF), had their mini-army, and people in the camps, though temporarily agreeing to switch over to just political defiance, reversed that after a couple of years. All the various armed groups thought they could defeat the Army, but I think that was a foolish judgment on their part, as the Army was bigger and stronger and had more weapons.

The so-called National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma, which isn’t really a coalition government at all, with headquarters in Washington DC—not very close to Burma—they had their own ways, they thought, to get independence and defeat the government, but they didn’t show much signs of learning something new.

And, Aung San Suu Kyi, for all her wonderful qualities, and her heroism and inspiration for those who believe in democratic rights and the rights of Burmese people—she is not a strategist, she is a moral leader. That is not sufficient to plan a strategy.

Although “From Dictatorship to Democracy” was written for Burmese, there were no Burmese groups who really took that analysis seriously or used at as a strategy for the liberation of Burma. People got arrested and sent to prison for carrying it, in Burmese and other languages, they could organize very powerful and brave demonstrations in Rangoon and elsewhere, but they did not plan a grand struggle. If you don’t plan, if you don’t have a bigger strategy, you’re not going to win.

 

Aung San Suu Kyi, Myanmar’s beloved resistance leader, has apparently just been released after more than seven years of house arrest—and 15 years of the last 20. A Nobel Peace Prize winner, she has been a champion of and symbol for the grassroots efforts to topple the incredibly repressive rule of the military dictatorship in that country. This news comes just as the junta announced that it has secured, by way of rigged elections, leadership in both houses of the country’s parliament. Here are some images of the crowds awaiting her release:

She is expected to speak publicly on Sunday. But according to The New York Times, she wasn’t completely silent: “We must unite!” she said. “If we are united, we can get what we want.”

Aung San Suu Kyi has been an advocate of the crippling international sanctions against Myanmar—which are meant, in part, to pressure the junta for her release. According to this Al Jazeera report (and Nicholas Kristof), some believe that in doing she has become out of touch with the needs of the people:

If you haven’t already, make sure to see Burma VJ, a film about how a small group of media activists risked their lives to cover the remarkable Buddhist monks’ protest in 2007:

Outsiders may wonder—why is Burma’s main democratic opposition boycotting elections on November 7th, after twenty years of waiting?

This video from Burma Partnership, which features some of my favorite activists on the Thai-Burma border, offers some answers. Win Hlaing, an MP-elect from the 1990 elections, alongside Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, was never allowed to claim office after their party won in a landslide. He describes how this time, the regime has already guaranteed their win before election day, with Daw Suu and most of the opposition behind bars, and top generals assuming ‘civilian’ identities to contest. Naw Htoo Paw, an ethnic Karen activist who has been actively campaigning to bring the junta to the International Criminal Court asks a key question—how we can possibly expect real political change when those responsible for crimes against humanity are still in charge? Outspoken Ashin Sopaka, brings to mind the scores of brave monks who took to the streets in 2007’s Saffron Revolution, with another impassioned call to resistance.

With less than two weeks before the elections, a recent junta announcement has banned any international observers or journalists. Those with the best info on both the elections and various forms of resistance to them are Burma’s independent media outlets with one foot inside the country (read: networks of undercover journalists) and one foot out. Burma News International, the Irrawaddy, and the Democratic Voice of Burma (of Burma VJ fame) are good ones to watch.

Some foreign journalists have snuck in and managed to do some interesting interviews inside the country. A recent piece in The Independent spotlights the challenges facing opposition candidates who have in fact decided to contest. Tellingly, they say they are fighting an election they know they cannot win.