As many of us know, when Aung San Suu Kyi was released from house arrest in 2010, and her party won the majority five years later, it had felt like a sign that Myanmar was slouching towards freedom, much as Francis Fukuyama stated in his "End of History" article. These days, with her move to deny the brutal massacres of the Rohingya Muslim community and refer to it as fake news, her reputation as a human rights icon and freedom fighter have been ripped to shreds, with many stating that they felt betrayed by The Lady.
In many ways, this was because the great majority of us only saw her as we wanted to see her, and not the calculating politician she has been all along. Hence her decision to accept the military's carrot and stick offer of releasing her and then limiting her official voice, putting restrictions aplenty on her.
But what if she was in fact what we proclaimed her to be? What if she had chosen to spit in their faces and turn down the offer, saying that she would not accept a release as long as the junta remained in power to any extent whatsoever and all other political prisoners freed from captivity?
In many ways, this was because the great majority of us only saw her as we wanted to see her, and not the calculating politician she has been all along. Hence her decision to accept the military's carrot and stick offer of releasing her and then limiting her official voice, putting restrictions aplenty on her.
But what if she was in fact what we proclaimed her to be? What if she had chosen to spit in their faces and turn down the offer, saying that she would not accept a release as long as the junta remained in power to any extent whatsoever and all other political prisoners freed from captivity?