Myanmar Democracy Icon Finds Herself Assailed as Authoritarian

[Jonathan Fairfield]

Myanmar Democracy Icon Finds Herself Assailed as Authoritarian

By THOMAS FULLER

YANGON, Myanmar — Framed photographs of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, the Nobel laureate, cover the walls of his small living room, but U Myo Khin, a longtime democracy activist, has harsh words for the woman he idolized for years as a crusader against dictatorship.

“The goal is still democracy, but her behavior is authoritarian,” said Mr. Myo Khin, whose credentials in the democracy movement include 12 years as a political prisoner. “She is losing people like us who have been strong supporters for a very long time.”

It was taboo for many years among democracy activists in Myanmar to speak ill of Ms. Aung San Suu Kyi, who became a global icon of democracy and a symbol of resistance against oppression when Myanmar was ruled by a brutal military junta.

Any criticism of The Lady, as she is known here, was seen as strengthening the hand of the generals.

“She has made enemies with the people she needs,” said U Sithu Aung Myint, a widely read columnist with a reputation for nonpartisan commentary. “She lacks strategic thinking, and she is not a clever politician.”

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/29/world/asia/myanmar-democracy-icon-finds-herself-assailed-as-authoritarian.html?_r=0

[al007]

For a woman who sacrificed the better part of two decades fighting dictatorship, much of that time under house arrest, it is deeply paradoxical that a word increasingly used to describe her is authoritarian, even among her closest allies in her party, the National League for Democracy.

If the people and the country want to move forward they need to listen to this Lady

​Most great leaders are authoritarian Churchill, Margaret Thatcher, they do whats needed then the people throw them out, sad but factual

[Bignose]

I understand you're logic but the last line of you're contribution is in my honest opinion flawed with it's simple comparison.

You are perfectly correct with you're summation as to the sacrifice made over several years by this gracious and selfless Lady, she lost her freedom, her family, and ultimately her last available precious time with her husband who sadly died.

All of this in the pursuit of some sort of democracy and justice for her country, for something resembling a freedom that most of the western world takes for granted.

The Margaret Thatcher that you compare her to sacrificed absolutely nothing on a personal level, her only sacrifice was the hopes and future of several future generations. Yes British industry was in deep trouble on several different fronts, yes drastic action was needed to modernize and upgrade how many British institutions worked, but her myopic and ideologically driven destruction and abandonment of British (and in particular Scottish) industry is still having a financial effect today.

Unlike many other countries who have had to go through the same painful process of modernization, other countries who invested in new industries, training and education, this cynical government walked away from whole regions and communities.

Thatcher sacrificed nothing, her only contribution was to ensure that many millions of the lower classes paid for her beliefs and wants, a more cynical and destructive leader we will never again (hopefully) see again...

[Linzz]

Not having researched it so maybe not up to speed but did she not turn her back on the plight of the Rohingya people? That was because she didn't want to end up insulting majority Buddhists by looking to support minority Muslims in her own country? Maybe she then would have ended up like Phil Blackwood (next article).