5 - Market-Oriented Period under Military Rule since 1988: Macroeconomic and External Sector Performance

Summary

“Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it”.

George Santayana

A. Introduction

There is a perception amongst certain groups of people that the 1987 demonetization was the undoing of the socialist regime under military rule. This view is widely skewed. The 1987 demonetization was indeed the catalyst for the political upheaval of 1988. But, as observed by many scholars, both from within the country and from abroad, the collapse of the socialist economy of Myanmar was not something that came about suddenly. Trouble had been brewing since the mid-1980s, if not earlier, due basically to the stagnation of the economy during the BSPP era and the absence of significant economic development.

In fact, earlier in the mid-1970s the economy had already been on the verge of collapse but it was rescued by a massive infusion of economic aid and loans. As noted earlier, the twenty-five-year period of military rule has been marked with a series of anti-government demonstrations. Whenever the economic situation deteriorated there had been demonstrations, as in 1967, 1974, and 1988. Some scholars see “a clear correlation between economic growth, money and political unrest” (Collignon 2001, p. 88). At any rate, these anti-government demonstrations attest to the general dissatisfaction of the public with the governance of the BSPP regime. However, the government, believing only in its own version of the truth, was unaware of the depth of public opposition to its remaining in office. The 1988 demonstration was the final straw that broke the camel's back.

On hindsight, it would seem that policy failure and bad governance must be given equal weight in bringing about the impoverishment of the nation and the downfall of the regime. Neither of them need be repeated in wearisome detail. Let it suffice that in the sphere of economic policy-making, the main problem has always been the primacy of politics over economics and the government's emphasis on political expediency and short-term results in almost all its undertakings in order to dispel political discontent. As for governance, the government either did not care or did not have any conception of good governance. The concepts of transparency and accountability, consistency in policy-making, good public administration, and other essentials of good governance seem totally alien to it.