2
organizations has ebbed (Gibson 2001). Nonetheless, there remain “weak ties”
that still operate within these regimes: As a result of the mistrust of authority
engendered by totalitarian regimes, people developed extensive close personal
ties and social networks, sheltered from the public sphere (Howard 2002; see also
Gibson 2001). Although these weak ties are not a substitute for an active civil
society, they bode well for the future of civil society and democratization,
provided the necessary institutions develop that sustain interaction and dialogue
in the public arena.
Although culturally unique from these post-Communist regimes, Burma
shares their totalitarian legacy. Therefore many parallels can be made as to the
impact of totalitarian rule on the populace and the likelihood for autonomous
organization in the public realm. Currently, still under the oppression of a
totalitarian government, no autonomous organization is permitted in Burma,
however, could a civil society even flourish if given the opportunity? Or, would
the mistrust engendered by the current regime thwart the organization of a civil
society? Moreover, would a civil society in Burma be a necessary step to
democratization? Some scholars argue that civil society is not the panacea as it
was originally assumed, and could actually foster authoritarian rather than
democratic rule (Berman 1997). Given Burma’s unique culture and history, could
civil society actually promote democratization, or would it only condemn Burma
to perpetual subjugation?
Convention