BBC & Burma’s Pro-Democracy Movement

Andrew Gilligan an ex BBC Today's programme journalist and editor of the BBC Radio 4, writing in the Spectator magazine accuses the BBC institution of having fear of authority but not the government.  As the Burmese pro-democracy exile activists increasingly accuse the Burmese service as junta bias his arguments against the institution leads me to probe the questions about BBC Burmese radio programme.

 No doubt Andrew will always be picking on the institution because allegedly BBC sacked him for bringing shame to the institution by leaking his source within the British government falsifying the claims made by the Prime Minister's office that Saddam had the nuclear capability to attack Britain in 45 minutes.  Yet his arguments about BBC's fear of authority seem plausible in exploring the age old institution built as propaganda machinery during the First World War.  The institution constantly changed and changing according to the day and age.  Currently, it is run as a public broadcasting station paid by the licence payers.  The Burmese service exists under the umbrella of World Service.

 Without any prejudice sometimes the charges against the BBC Burmese service laid by the exile Burmese democracy activists are baseless.  The prolonged struggle for democracy in Burmese gave rise to a several exile organisations and some of them get upset upon not getting plug in.  Hackneying through the petty axe to grinning saga against the Burmese service, one of the plausible charges against the section is the style and tone of interviews with the opposition politicians or exile activists. The Burmese section journalists or presenters interviewing them tend to ask "harsher" or "irksome" questions. 

 The Burmese politicians need to learn to answer "harsh" or "irksome" question as politics is about life in general and life can get harsher or irksome with various complications.   One of the greatest assets of Palestinian politicians or activities before the time of establishment of Palestinian land is that they have great ability to answer questions in pragmatic manner.  One can see their ability in counter arguing the Israeli politicians on the media.  Hence, the democratic activist in exile can learn a great deal from wide variety sources as we live in a complex world.  Burma may not have developed a great deal since the military junta took over the power in 1988 but we do live in a complex information technology society. 

 The BBC Burmese service being based in UK and financed by the people of Britain , the Burmese activists live in a visionary ethos that the service would intrinsically support or be bias towards the democracy movement.  On the other hand one may argue that under the freedom of speech and expression the journalist should be allowed to ask questions that they may deem to be important for the listeners.  Whatever the debate may be but I would like to argue a case for asking realistic questions especially to the oppressed politicians inside Burma .  For instance, it is unreasonable to ask Min Ko Naing, ex student leader of Burma soon after his release from incarceration, if he would continue his life being a democracy activist.  It would be extremely dangerous for Min Ko Naing to answer "yes" even if he wishes to do so.  The listeners would lose faith in him if answers "no". 

Asking Aung San Suu Kyi or her party to give an instant economic solution to the economic problems of the country can be regarded as an unfair and unreasonable question.  Firstly, Aung San Suu Kyi herself struggles to move freely and her party constantly live with the fear of authorities banning them illegal 0do not have a real economic data to interpret and produce a realistic answer.  Secondly, the economic data produce by the junta is not deemed to be accurate enough to interpret the economic activity of the country.

 One can arguably defend the Burmese service by highlighting the fact that their journalist are equally keen to grill or roast the junta questions if they are willing to appear on the programmes.  The argument is plausible only if the service repeatedly inform the audience that the junta's representative fail to appear on the programme.  The service may at least prove the point of junta shying away from being accountable.  It appears that the service fails to mention the point about junta refusing to answer questions.

 In a famous documentary called "Who's Bias?" produced by the Glasgow University Media Group, Tony Benn an ex - British politician accuses the BBC as a medieval church which supports any government of the day.  In the case of Burmese service, prior to 1988 pro-democracy mass uprising the section never came under constantly criticism from Ne Win's government.  Then administration in Burma imposed overall blanket ban on the foreign media and hence never reacted upon foreign media criticising them.  The government after Ne Win's time in Burma is blisteringly obsessed with criticising and naming and shaming BBC and other foreign for being critical of them.  Some of the British newspapers avoid sending their undercover journalist to Burma with the fear if exposed their newspaper will not allowed inside the country by the junta to cover major events.  These days the Zar of anti-sanction Dr. Zarni do a good job as Ambassador's at good will for the junta. 

 The post 1988 era seem challenging for the media outside Burma in dealing with the junta.  The constant allegation of "biasness" of BBC by the junta seem to be a pressure for the organisation to cover the news and feature programme with views of both the junta and the pro-democracy activists and politicians.  Any commentary or presentation cannot be free of biasness and there are limitless examples of such an arguments.  Andrew Gilligan is undoubtedly right to point out in his article in the Spectator that his ex-institution should not overly react upon accusation from authorities but should always be bias towards the audience.  This article does not accuse BBC Burmese section of junta bias but suggest that it should not bow down to junta's accusation.  The junta will always accuse the service no matter how much it attunes itself in order to fence off the allegations.

 The BBC Burmese Service needs a lot more to offer to the closed society of Burma .  It can come across as urban centred in it's contents of featured programmes such as computers, business and so forth.  Most of the unheard voices of Burma live in rural areas and agriculture remains to be the key economic sector.  It would be interesting to have programmes on farming community and their livelihood.  The institution tries itself to be creative in diverse programmes with debates surrounding politics and Burma such as sanction and so forth.  The key debate that needs addressing is the Democracy and Development.  A regular audience outside Burma claims that he would have liked to hear the serialisation of latest book by Amartya Sen on Democracy and Development.  With the given technology of to-days day and age the Burmese section can choose to broadcast a symbolic on live programme from a rural farmland and in Burma .  The Burmese section run and financed by the democratic society of Britain can be a grate ambassador of democracy. 

 Ko Sa La

WWW http://www.tayzathuria.org.uk/

.