Favour tactic pulls the wool over our eyes

It can be assumed that it is a way of persuading someone to do something by doing him or her a favour. It is a rough translation of the term. It is the same as giving a child a snacks or toy to persuade him to go to school. When he gets what he wants, he goes to school willingly. If a child refuses to put on clothes chosen by his parents, give him a snack that he likes, and he will wear the clothes happily. Similarly, a ruling party may also persuade an opposition group or party by doing it a favour.

Let’s say the opposition party is staging a demonstration against a particular policy of the ruling party. The latter is aware of this in advance, and holds negotiations with the former. The ruling party permits the opposition to hold the demonstration. In some countries, political parties have to seek permission to hold demonstrations. The authorities magnanimously permit them to demonstrate. The opposition is satisfied, as it is allowed to do what it wants. The opposition may consider it as a political victory. However, permission to hold demonstrations against a particular policy of a government is not the same as revoking the policy. They permit the opposition to hold a demonstration against the policy, but they pretend not to be aware of the need to change the policy. This is a clever political tactic. The opposition party is politically naive if it considers permission for the demonstration as a victory.

There is a good example for this. As a gesture of respect for freedom of expression, the British have a stage in London’s Hyde Park for everyone to say what he or she wants, or to criticise the government without being punished for that criticism. This is just a show. It does not matter what is said by whoever at the park; there is little impact on the government or its policies. The government will not change its policies. Therefore, it is important to know that freedom of expression at the park is just superficial.

U Nu’s AFPFL government in Myanmar had a similar platform called “Public Voice”. A stage was set up near the former American Embassy on the corner of Bandula Park in Yangon, but it did not last long. U Nu held the same attitude. It was no more than an attempt to emphasise the existence of freedom of expression. 

  With the right to openly criticise authority, it is necessary for the opposition to ponder whether it is a hoax or a trap. When an occasion arises to demand something, the authorities might say permission has been granted as part of democratic practice. It is implied that there is democracy simply because its practices prevail. Boycotts and protests are allowed, but there is no knowing or telling whether demands will be met or not. The right to protest will lead the opposition to the assumption that democracy exists. 

In another recent example in Myanmar, news journals face a weeklong closure for their criticism of the government, which draws statements and complaints from other news journals. As a direct consequence, the suspended papers can resume publication. They take delight at the news, in the thought that the government is very broad-minded. But there was no reason to suspend the news journals. It is one of the government’s tactics. 

We need to see through these tactics. In other words, it is an entrapment model. We need to understand the fact that fighting against a system can be tantamount to strengthening it. What has been presented here is just an example of “incorporation”.