Burma’s Supreme Court finally rejected Suu Kyi’s appeal against her house arrest. This coming just days before Suu Kyi is due to be released from house arrest. Again, there’s really no surprise at the outcome…
Category Archives: Burma
Updates from the region
Sorry for the long absence. There’s actually been a good deal of excitement in the world of Southeast Asian judicial politics. Here are some updates from the region:
Burma: A Burmese court ruled against villagers in Kachin state seeking redress against a company that allegedly seized his land. No surprise there.
Indonesia: The Indonesian Supreme Court allowed a controversial prosecution of two members of the Corruption Eradication Commission. The Attorney General decided to drop the case, but several legislators have declared foul. Again, the Supreme Court seems not only unwilling to prevent corruption, but also willing to abet it.
Philippines: Relations between the judiciary and president are souring. The Supreme Court is ruling against several administration initiatives, including the toll hike and removing Arroyo’s midnight appointees.
Thailand: The Constitutional Court removed six Thai politicians, including some prominent Democrats. A ruling regarding Abhisit’s future is imminent.
Comments Off on Updates from the region
Filed under Burma, indonesia, Philippines, Thailand
Political Parties in Burma
I wrote a brief op-ed in Irrawaddy about political parties in Burma and how they might actually strengthen the country’s authoritarian elites. It’s not related to law so much, but does address some of the broader literature on institutional design in authoritarian countries.
Comments Off on Political Parties in Burma
Filed under Burma
Why is Burma’s Supreme Court hearing the NLD’s lawsuit?
As you might have noticed, Burma’s Supreme Court agreed to hear a lawsuit by Aung San Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy challenging the dissolution of the party. While this has received much media attention (for a Democratic Voice of Burma article, see here), it seems to me that most observers haven’t yet really explained the move. I’ll give you a clue: it’s not because the Supreme Court will actually rule against the ruling SPDC or the Election Commission.
Rather, it seems to me that the country’s political elites are increasingly using the courts as a means to take the blame for unpopular decisions. I’ve noticed that the judiciary seems increasingly involved in political questions, such as Suu Kyi’s trial last year (although, of course that involvement remains minimal overall). I suspect this is a deliberate decision and part of the junta’s transition to civilianized rule in which the elite rules through political institutions, not the military hierarchy.
This is a fairly common rationale for courts under authoritarian regimes. In fact, it is probably more important for authoritarian elites who do not have a strong grip on power because they do not possess the legitimacy of their democratic counterparts. In Egypt and China, courts helped reformist leaders begin dismantling the social welfare state over the objections of staunch Nasserites and Maoists. Opponents often focused their wrath on the courts, relieving the politicians of some of the heat.
However, in order for this strategy to be effective, the court must be somewhat independent in order for its rulings to be credible. If it is clearly just an agent of the political elite, then citizens will still blame the government for the court’s policy decisions. If I’m right about why Burma’s courts have become more prominent, I also believe that the junta’s tactic will fail or even backfire because the courts in Burma are notorious for their subservience to the military.
It will be interesting to see how the judiciary develops after the elections, particularly the new Constitutional Tribunal. It might also play this role of deflecting blame for unpopular policies, but unless the courts show some independence (or rule against the government occasionally) they will remain uncredible sources of policymaking.
An interview with a Burmese defense attorney
It’s not often that we get insights into Burma’s criminal justice system. The biggest glimpse was probably last year’s trial of Aung San Suu Kyi. This morning, Irrawaddy published an interview with criminal defnese attorney Aye Nu Sein, who represented Arakanese abbot Ashin Pyinnya Sara. His client was just sentenced to 8 years and 3 months imprisonment for running a private orphanage. Aye Nu Sein is understandably reluctant to speak too frankly, but nevertheless provides enough hints to reveal what he really thinks about the system.
Comments Off on An interview with a Burmese defense attorney
Filed under Burma, criminal procedure
Dominic J. Nardi, Jr. 
You must be logged in to post a comment.