Transcript: Episode #152: I Fought the Law (and the Law Won)
Following is the full transcript for the interview with Kristina Simion. This transcript was made possible by Artificial Intelligence (AI) and has not been checked by any human reader. Because of this, many of the words may not be accurate in this text. This is particularly true of speakers who have a stronger accent, as AI will make more mistakes interpreting and transcribing their words. For that reason, this transcript should not be cited in any article or document without checking the timestamp to confirm the exact words that the guest has really said.
Host 00:18
When Myanmar experienced its transition period, moving towards democracy in the late 2010s, after decades of harsh military dictatorship, many Burmese crafts people hope their beautiful work could finally be appreciated beyond the country's borders, and that they could stick out a livelihood for themselves and their families. But this was not following the military coup, many skilled artists and suddenly found all possibility of continuing their work closed off and began struggling just to feed their families. A better Burma we have created an avenue to help opening an online shop that offers genuine handcrafted products made in Myanmar at a reasonable prices. To see these unique designs and the lovely craftsmanship, visit a local crafts.com That's a loca a l o ke crafts C R A F T S one word.com.
Sai 01:10
Happiness is watching sunsets along the strand. Love is enjoying the cup of milk tea in China term. Peace is having late night straws around the shoot have gone. Home is where my soul feels and heals. Now my soul is empty and so is my hunger.
01:59
HA HA HA HA HA Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha good.
Host 02:33
On this episode of insight Myanmar podcast, we're joined by the author and scholar Christina Simeon rule of law intermediaries brokering influence in Myanmar. And we're excited to have a conversation based on this book and her research. So Christina, thanks for joining us for this episode.
Kristina Simion 02:50
Thank you very much for recording this podcast. With me focusing on on this book, I appreciate it very much.
Host 02:59
Right. So let's get off right away. Start with some of your findings and what you researched. You began the book and the Preface by noting that it was quote, research during a time of optimism and quote, can you describe in a little more detail what you meant by by operating in a time of optimism compared to where we're at now and just flesh out that period in a bit more detail for our listeners?
Kristina Simion 03:28
Sure. Well, as many of you who will be listening, knows by now, you know, the opening period and the transition period that started somewhere roughly after elections in 2010. We know now was the specific time in the country's history. Myanmar was more open to the outside world, foreign investors for coming to Yangon and other cities to initiate their projects. A lot of foreign donor agencies also wanted to take part in was what was described as you know, a major opportunity for transition for a country that had been isolated for decades under military rule. I could really feel this optimism as I emerged myself in the donor community in Yangon. I met people from all across the world who were some of them were on their first mission. They did not know much about the country. They had been posted there for their first international posting. Others had worked for several years in Cambodia or other transitional contexts around the globe. And it was really this time where I also experienced that the people I was focusing on interviewing and following for my book, had a lot of optimists. estimate optimism, they believed in a democratic future. They were working hard to achieve those goals. And there was a lot of optimism also, in those years leading up to the 2015 elections, I experienced completely different sort of sentiment, when I went back, just before COVID hit and close the borders, I experienced a lot more frustration. By then, which was early 2020, I believe, yeah, early 2020. And I was quite surprised by the difference. I, the different feeling I got and the different sort of feelings expressed by the people I had come to work with, or that I had come to work with during my interviews for so long. So all of that optimism, optimism seemed to have sort of gone out the window, and people had, you know, they were not friends with their old friends anymore, they did not have the same sort of belief for a democratic future. Now, today, of course, we know why that happened, or why those feelings were changed so dramatically.
Host 06:23
That's really interesting. And that's actually new information for me coming from you. I don't, that part. Those sentiments obviously aren't in the book, because that was written, I guess, before some of those trips. But you you reference being in Myanmar before the pandemic even and long before the coup and starting to sense that optimism starting to run its course and to transition into something else, even while they're still there. The NLD is still in some kind of power, and there's still some kind of democracy going on. But you start to just feel a kind of sea change. Can you describe it a little more detail? What, as you were there, what you were feeling what you were sensing what shape it was taking?
Kristina Simion 07:06
Well, you know, for example, one of my key informants that is also part of my study, and one of the central intermediaries that I worked for several, several donors. You know, I asked him about what he thought about the coming elections and the National League for Democracy. And he told me, you know, nothing is really going the way we expected, but they're our best option right now. So they are the best option to military rule, but they are not a good option. Also, different individuals and organizations that had been working together for a better future had fallen out. Factions had been created, organizations had been switched around, because people were not friends anymore. I think a lot of them had been disappointed. And they were disappointed because they did not see enough actual substantive change taking place. There were still a lot of rhetoric going on, and discussions about things like democracy and rule of law, but in reality, not much had changed. And this was also something that they actually told me, they said, you know, on paper, things look better. But in reality, things have not changed for the better.
Host 08:25
That's, that's really interesting. And I want to explore that a little bit more, but I want to back up first and get to some of your, your research and findings just so the listenership can get caught up in what it was you were exactly doing before that recent visit. So to provide more context, I'm going back also to the preface you you also describe Myanmar during this period as a kind of last frontier. So can you describe what you mean by Myanmar being a last frontier during this decade?
Kristina Simion 08:54
Well, it is probably a term I adapt from from a lot of the people I met when I was doing my fieldwork. And it comes from this expression from the donor community that they were actually going there to save one of the last frontiers one of the last countries to move towards democratization. And, you know, a new political future. And there was something so interesting to me in their expression, and their feelings about what they were doing in Myanmar. And they also are a lot of them came with these preconceived understandings of what Myanmar was and what it was not. So I'm probably adapting that term from what I heard when I was in the field and when I was immersed, immersed in this donor community. And in in many ways, I guess, Myanmar, was one of the last frontiers but of course we know today that it is not in there. Other countries going backwards in terms of their political development. But I can really again, it comes to sort of sentiments and feelings and what I was experiencing when I was doing my fieldwork. And I really did meet a lot of individuals who worked in this donor community who came from across the globe to support processes and development in what they believed to be one of the last 40 years.
Host 10:38
That's interesting. That sounds like there's also some sediment of kind of foreign Savior ism in there. And you you reference how people came with fixed ideas of what Myanmar is and what Myanmar is not. Can you give some examples of what comes to mind of how they were defining how foreign foreign aid workers, perhaps some of whom had very little if no experience in Myanmar, and yet we're coming with fixed ideas of what it was and what wasn't to how, what would be some examples of what those fixed ideas were?
Kristina Simion 11:12
I mean, I think, I mean, a lot of people arrived, they came to Yangon, me as well. That's the way I designed my study, I started out, I also came from an international background. So I wanted to follow these people. And I was easily one one amongst them. And I think if you write to Myanmar in 2011, you know, you could go to modern bars, restaurants, cafes, well, maybe not 2011. But a couple of years in, it was this bustling city with nightclubs, and great restaurants, etc. So I think if you arrive in that setting, it's easy to forget about all the problems going out going on across the country, it's easy to forget that there's a civil war, it's easy to forget about the military dictatorship and their control over society. And I mean, even for myself, I can admit, it was not until the recent coup that I've fully understood how brutal the military can be and how brutal it has been. For several decades, I could just not imagine the brutality that had been going on, and had happened for so many decades in that country until I saw it after the military coup. So I think it was easy to get blinded by everything that was happening in this city. And as we know, many of the international organizations that also set up offices in Myanmar at that time they stayed in. in Yangon, because of several reasons, Naypyidaw was difficult to access, the Navy door has no international schools, no, and no good hospitals, etc. And they were also often prevented from traveling to other regions. At least in the beginning, it changed a lot, a little bit after a while. So I mean, it's easy to get one view of the country when you're in a specific city. But if you travel across the country, and you will see a lot more human suffering. But there was also this, I think, idea that Myanmar is a peaceful country, with Buddhist values that propagate for peace. And of course, there are a lot of things we can unpack with those understandings. I also think a lot of the people I met, were not, they did not sort of take enough time to fully understand the context by drawing on, for example, the resources or the research that had already been done. And I think if I mean, I had someone tell me, you know, we were able to implement development projects in Afghanistan, Why could we not do it in Myanmar? And a comment like that just illustrates how, yeah, how we easily compare contexts, but Myanmar is specific is a specific case, and they have complete different political situation. And I was also I could also see how it was difficult for for foreign development staff, for example, to understand the authoritarian system and how that system functions and how that system sort of triples down and influences every single part of, of society.
Host 14:51
That's interesting. And even even that comparison to Afghanistan before the coup reminds me of after the coup. Many foreign observers starting to say me and my There's gonna be like Syria. Now it's going to be like the former Yugoslavia, it's a comparison to Sudan, or what happened in the Arab Spring and one after the other after the other. And these early, these early predictions when the coup first broke, they've all turned out not to be true and saying, by these, perhaps similar class of foreign observers that is trying to grasp on to some other model that they know, because there are so few people that have really, so few scholars that are aid workers, there are some, but there are such a small handful of those who have supported and follow through and understood at a ground level in Myanmar over the decades, rather than just perhaps coming with, with with models of of other places and trying to implement them. So that's, that's interesting to see that you were experiencing something years ago that that we're all living through now with with the coup and with the kinds of analyses and, and comments from foreign observers that we've seen in the past year. Yeah, definitely. So this is all really interesting. And I want to come back to this in further detail. But I do want to go into the depth of of the thing, the research and your findings and in the book, because I think that a better understanding of this will bring to the current situation and some of your current opinions and observations understand it in greater depth for the listenership. So first of all, let's just look at rule of law. One of the main things you talked about in the book the title as well, can you define what rule of law is and why it's important?
Kristina Simion 16:34
Well, it's, it's pretty obvious why it is important, I think for a lot of people in several societies that actually can say that they do have at least the basic system of rule of law. According to the UN definition, it's the principle of governance. And it is a system where we enjoy some sort of basic respect for the law, where there is a state system and leaders that follow the law. And a basic sort of concept related to that is that that was developed, you know, in ancient times is the rule of law, not men. And of course, we know that that false feels in relation to Myanmar. The way I discuss the rule of law in my book, however, is I look at it as a phenomenon that happens within the development field. So I look at how development agencies take this concept of rule of law and then try to export it. And what they do then is that they try to export a system where you have, for example, independent judiciaries, you have a non corrupt, corrupt police force, you have a functioning prison system, you have a state that is governed by law and regulation. And this law and regulation needs to be passed in appropriate manners, you have separation of powers, you have a broader system of governance, you have several justice actors that can help solve conflicts. And you have laws that are made publicly available, that are communicated, that are non discriminatory, that respects human rights, etc. There's a long list of, of aspects that that are connected to this idea of the rule of law. And of course, if we have the rule of law in place, we should be very lucky because then we can avoid hideous crimes taking place we can avoid a system where a military can brutalize their own population without being punished. We can have a system where people know their rights where they know how to apply for identification for the children so they can go to school, where they know how to get a passport, even if they're an ethnic minority. They know how to make sure they get their land rights registered, etc, etc. So, these are all very good ideals. But when we take this to the international development field, I often talk about how the rule of law becomes a model that we try to implement in different settings. And that was the aspect I I took with me when I explored the rule of law in Myanmar. So I never looked at the rule of law as it exists or not exists in Myanmar. There are several scholars that have done that previously. But I did find it fascinating to look at how the international development field uses the term rule of law or if it's a concept or ideal, but the various ways they try to work with it. And I myself, I'm one of those, and I find it fascinating on a daily basis.
Host 20:07
One of the things I found really fascinating when I was reading about rule of law in as it pertained in the context of Myanmar that you refer to is that this often came up meeting like Law and Order rather than substantive rights and Law and Order is something that the time it definitely has promoted for some time that they are there. They're supposedly the arbitrators and Judy cating, the rule of law and the law and order of how people are behaving and following the rules and not following the rules and, and that this is often how they start to interpret this idea of rule of law. It reminded me of a couple things that friends have told me and it stayed in my mind one, I had a lawyer friend who was a Burmese exile living abroad and came back during the transition period. And she noted that one of the work she was doing as a lawyer in Myanmar at that time, was trying to show how the law was something that can also protect you rather than harm you because so many Burmese at that time had really seen the law only as having one function as a sword and not a shield as something that would, would harm them and put them at risk and never something that could actually protect them. Now, that was a very unknown concept from any of them. And the second thing that came to mind as a friend during this coup period and the resistance, a friend saying, Look, we we Burmese don't really have any confidence that the government is actually going to do good for us or is actually going to protect our communities. And in some ways, that's not even a goal we're trying to aim for. We're just trying to get them to stop harming us if, if they can just do nothing, do absolutely nothing. But leave us alone to administer ourselves and take care of ourselves. That's enough of a win, but the thought of actually having a government that would care for you and protect you or have any level of stability or rights, that that wasn't even really a realistic game, according to her. So with, with this in mind, this idea that rule of law can be interpreted either as something that are substantive rights or trying to create a just and equitable society, or something that is just an excuse for law and order. And however, that law and order is interpreted and administered. What are your thoughts on on that interpretation of rule of law? And the possibilities of what? What kinds of reforms could happen or possible in Myanmar?
Kristina Simion 22:38
Well, yeah, I mean, your anecdotes are, what your friends told you really resonates with what I experienced as well. And that was the the sad fact that you know, ordinary people in Myanmar did everything they could to stay away from the law, the law was always seen as a tool, you know, from from the rulers to sort of oppress the population. And of course, that goes against, you know, our understanding of what the law should be, and the way the law should be able to protect people's rights. And it is a very tricky situation when you talk about these things with Myanmar. I'm currently I have training courses with people in, you know, in areas hiding in the jungle who wants to learn more about rule of law principles, and just basic principles for lawmaking. I did a workshop today on transitional justice issues where, you know, I was talking about the fact that the state is the main guarantor of international legal norms, and people's human rights. And it just becomes so obvious that it is very difficult to translate these ideals to the Myanmar setting where we see the opposite. One thing that I think was problematic when the donor community arrived in Myanmar after the political opening in 2011. And they were their discussions on rule of law started around that time, but also a couple of years in so I would say around 2012 13, some of the main global actors in the rule of law field would set up their offices or work from from former from the Traders Hotel, which is now the Shangri La, or was the last time I was there. But a problem and a mistake I think they made was that they came in and they met with government officials and they discussed rule of law and they use the term rule of law and even in English for government. officials didn't Myanmar if you say rule of law, what they come to think about and what it means to them is law and order. So bringing in that term was quite problematic. And if they would have read studies of Rooney rule of law and the judicial system in Myanmar, they could have figured this out, because there was research at that time. It was only a couple of years in that they understood that rule of law was not a good term to use, it is better to use perhaps justice access to justice or similar terms that do not involve this term that is easily mistranslated. And when we look at the current opportunities for sort of a future, democratic future, I think we need to look to the national unity government and their affiliated actors, and then UCC. And the way they are using lawmaking and justice, to prepare themselves for a better future. So if you look, for example, at the constitutional process, that is being undertaken, it is recognized in a draft charter, at least that customary law systems and norms should be applicable if they respect human rights. And if we talk about rule of law for a future Myanmar, I think this is where we need to, this is where we need to start. Because people are avoiding the formal system, because there's no trust in the system. And it is controlled by the military. People avoid the law as much as they can, but they do use their non state or informal systems. So I think that will be the where the place we can look for sort of norms and values and traditions that can foster this basic idea of the right to justice, and people's rights. And then from there on, that could be translated upwards to a new or future state system or the like.
Host 27:16
Right. And I think one interesting thing and having this discussion is, I think that it is, on one level, there's like the some of these big concepts that we're talking about in terms of the way that countries and governments administer themselves and the overall systems they carry out. And as important as that is, I think that sometimes those larger concepts can get lost in for people just listening to this and just trying to understand what it actually feels like to be a member of a society where certain kinds of rules are expected or followed, or the lack of, and I think for those coming from largely Western privileged backgrounds, it's just hard to know what it feels like to live under a system that doesn't have things that we take for granted every single day being here and what it's like to try to make your way in the world when you just simply don't have certain protections that are here. And there's one anecdote that I that one insight that I had several years ago, and I thought about this quite a bit, it was kind of a light bulb going off in my head, and I be curious to get your thoughts on how it might relate, just given a just looking at, at a very personal and individual micro level of these greater systems and that some so I I've lived in Myanmar for many years and familiar with the culture and people over some time. And over those years, just riding buses, just taking that example, or planes or trains or anything else. I would always notice how when the train when when whatever vehicle you're on, made a stop. Prior to that stop, everyone just immediately stood up and was trying to push and get in front and get their bags, it was always a very tense and coming from the west where usually vehicle stops are row by row in terms of people getting off and it's more of a calm or slower process. There's kind of a mad rush to make sure you get off and if you don't get your bag and get into the aisle, then you'll you'll be relegated usually to last and could have quite a weight. And this was always kind of a stressful thing to have to go through and went through that for years without really thinking too much about it just going through the process of it. And then suddenly an idea hit I had this insight that connected that experience with the it was one of the first times I really thought about a rule of law, whether that law was something written or something that was was more underlying, but just realizing that well this is something that is not good for anyone no one really likes having to rush into push into to get there first. It's just better for everyone if they're is a system where you trust you have a trust that it's going to be row by row, you don't need to push the next person out of the way, you don't need to grab your bag and get up quick. Or if you don't do that, then the consequences, you simply can't get off for 20 minutes or something, that you have a trust that there's a system, that you're going to allow the people ahead of you to take time the people behind you. And you're also going to have that time. And when there is that lack of trust, and you, you don't think that there's going to be any system of rules that's going to allow you off in an orderly way, then you're left with an option of having to push and rush and make space for yourself, or having to know that you're going to be in last and you're going to miss certain opportunities. And the insight for me wasn't so much in that example of what it's like to get off a bus, it was more like a light bulb going off of like, this is what it's like to live in a society where there are certain kinds of protections or, or rules that are just not followed that you in every aspect of life, whether it's driving, whether it's on a bus, whether it's business, whether it's education, or much bigger things, whatever it is, you're faced with this kind of dilemma that no one really likes, but when everyone's in that system, everyone somehow has to follow that system to not be left out. And this insight suddenly made me aware of the incredible privilege I had of being able to live with more space, more calmness, more trusting that, that the system isn't going to exactly do everything for me. But it's also going to give me space to be able to do what I need to do without having to block other people out. So I'm curious, I know, this is a very, this, this anecdote is a very kind of personal thing that doesn't exactly relate to the way governments work. But I'm wondering what your thoughts are on this insight. And if you see this relating to like a wider structure of the kinds of systems that we're that we're looking at, of governments and peoples following.
Kristina Simion 32:03
No, it, it actually resonates with me, because I I remember, one of the first things I was told when I came here and gone was that people here are in Yangon. I mean, there were street crossings, but no one knows what they're there for. So no one knows what a street crossing is, except for a couple of painted lines on the street. And I thought that's so peculiar, like why, of course, they're there for a reason, they're there to enable safe passage across a very busy road. And then, you know, living there for a while, I realize there is no way I could use the street crossing. And I mean, the ones without traffic lights are the ones without traffic, like there's no way for me to use it in a trust for way. So I can't trust that a car will not hit me, if I if I cross the street crossing with a traffic light. There is no trust in that system. And I have seen people trying to cross streets, even when there there are street crossings, and they just can't trust that the cars will stop for them and the cars will not stop for them. So that was just another sort of example of how you can look at a system and wonder why is that trust lacking? Or why do people not just trust that things will will sort themselves out. And I think the key word here is actually the the issue of trust in trusting a government. And to do that, of course, you need to have previous experiences of what that trust is. And I think it's fairly easy to break that trust. So if you grew up in a situation where you're never treated fairly or good at all, on behalf of the authorities, then there will be just this very low level of basic trust and to sort of try to build something from from there will be very difficult. Well, I mean, if you live in a society where rules and regulations are known, and you know what to expect from from the authorities, then of course, that creates a lot more order in your life. I for example have you know, more often experienced me, for example, living in Sweden, I expect a great deal of I expect a great deal from from the authorities in here because over here because that's sort of a society in a system I'm used to and I would say I have have a high degree of trust in the system that I grew up with. But it's also a system that it's it's quite invisible. You don't see police officers on the streets, you just simply sort of expect that the authorities will treat you in an equal manner non discriminatory when you do seek their assistance. And it has occurred to me more recently that this is not always the case, even in my own system. Yeah, I'd really like your bus story, though. Sir, make something out of it. I do. I think that's, that's great. Keep the bus story.
Host 35:43
Sure. Sure. I can I can move ahead of the other direction. Good. Yeah. So looking back a little bit on Myanmar's history to understand how we got here, we know that Myanmar has a colonial legacy with the British, can you share a bit about where does an understanding of rule of law that we're, we're looking at now, or at least through the past military dictatorship, what is the historical precedent of that understanding of rule of law with the British occupation for some time?
Kristina Simion 36:11
Well, as in many settings, the British colonial powers, they came in with new systems of governance, which was not governance really, but more of a type of regulated control and brutality as well. They introduced new laws and legislation that they motivated with, you know, an idea or belief in rule of law. But this was, of course, something that was being put in place also for economic gains. And whatever was already existing in society, like, you know, national norms and legislation, etc, was often classified as customary law or non state practices. And, and to some extent, these would be let to continue, but separate then from from the system that the British introduced. And during this time, there were a lot of legislation introduced. And we do see that many of the laws that were passed during colonial rule are still in place. Today in Myanmar, for example, criminal codes, the Criminal Procedure Code. At that time, however, Myanmar, or Burma was not governed as its own country, but under the laws and regulations covering India. And it's, of course, very problematic to apply legislation that old today in Myanmar to criminal cases, for example. So in some ways, the British introduced a common law system, which is the system that British law is based on. And today, that system will mix with other legal traditions. So we often talk about a hybrid legal system and Myanmar, a lot of legal pluralism, because you have Buddhist law, you have Hindu law practices, and non state and customary law practices. But in essence, this idea of rule of law and the rule of law that the British came with was not something that provided more rights or something good for the people, it was rather a tool used to control the territory. And that's also why the term in itself becomes problematic than in when other actors use that term later on. Yeah, and I and I do think that if you look at how the military today and throughout history, how they act, I mean, a lot of their practices when it comes to law and regulation are modeled on the British system. And it's very interesting to see today also, after the coup, how completely obsessed the military, how obsessed they are with law, regulation, and how obsessed they are with getting things to court, almost sort of making it appear as if there's justice, a rule of law.
Host 39:27
Yeah, right. And even in that, in that regard, it's interesting to note that there are laws on the books from the British period that are over a century ago, that in the past number of years, they've actually the the military has actually tried to use some of those very, very old colonial laws to fit a certain situation where they, they want to stop something or enact something else. Isn't that right?
Kristina Simion 39:53
Yeah, absolutely. And they do use those laws quite frequently. And For example, the ban on public gatherings and other such sort of rights limitations often come from the colonial legislation.
Host 40:12
Right. And I think this is a good segue into looking at what how the military government before the transition period, so from 1962, on until 2010, or so, how they understood and implemented the rule of law. And I think it's really easy to say, Well, they didn't respect any rule of law, they, this was a brutal military dictatorship that just made up its own rules as it went along. However, it's a bit more complicated than that, as you alluded to, there's they, they certainly put out the pretense of caring greatly about law and order and discipline. And, you know, in fact, some of the Western apologists have really, of that regime have really followed through on justifying some parts of the military rule, based on their attempts to apply that law in order like Robert Taylor or Hans Bernards older they have in their works, they have taken the military line that their rule in some way is being justified by their interest in upholding the kind of rule of law. And so this is something we have to look at and understanding how they act and what they actually did. So what are your thoughts on during the military rule, how they, how they understood rule of law, and what they what they actually did, what their actions were, to, to to follow their understanding, or the hypocrisy is within.
Kristina Simion 41:46
What you're describing really sort of connects to one of the most long going discussion when in relation to the concept of rule of law. So we often separate a formal or thin rule of law, versus a thick or substantive rule of law. So just to get a basic understanding, if you talk about a thin or formal rule of law, well, that could have have applied in Nazi Germany because laws were passed in the territory, and people were falling following those laws. But, I mean, that's ridiculous, of course, to talk about rule of law in that context. So what we do is we talk about substantive or thick rule of law, which is a rule of law system that also respects human rights, and includes all of these different qualities I discussed earlier. So it means that laws need to be non discriminatory. You have legal equality, respect of human rights, etc. And if we put it in that context, yes, it is. You can, they could be discussion where you talk about, you know, an authoritarian system under an authoritarian leader, somehow respecting rule of law if you think of it in the thin or purely formal sense. But that, to me does not really lead to any sort of constructive arguments or any interesting discussions or points being made, because that means that anyone, any leader could just pretend or sort of say that they respect the rule of law, and just set up any peculiar or horrendous system that they like. So we should really not forget that when we do talk about rule of law today, we expect a lot more and we expect at least a basic understanding for people's rights. And I find nothing of that in previous military, under previous military, and the state law nor the restoration Council, then, it is pretty obvious to me that the main goal of those eras was to control the population. Even if Nevin for example, introduce Lee jurors lay judges in the courts, which can sort of be similar to in some sort of jury system. I mean, he put ordinary people and we have the same thing in Swedish courts, actually, where you have ordinary people sitting as judges in court, it's not often a very good idea. I do under understand the sort of basic idea that it's people in the courts, you know, partaking as judges, so it's a good idea, but it often does not work very well in practice. And in his case, it worked very unwell or it didn't work at all because these people get no education and did not know what to do in the court. So I would not agree with political science. interests are these other scholars who want to engage in our argument that there would be some sort of rule of law basic rule of law system during these times. I mean, it's similar to saying that there was rule of law in Nazi Germany and some people like engaged in those discussions as well. But from an international perspective and sort of modern conversation. They're wrong. So but it's a great example. And it was great to hear about those comparisons.
Host 45:37
Right. So I'd like to move to, to looking at a deeper theoretical understanding just of rule of law in general, because in the book, you talk a bit about the relationship between rule of law and for example, economic development, and the stability and security of the country. And I think this is also important because sometimes certain illiberal practices can be justified for a kind of transition or even beyond a transition to bring about greater economic development or stability and security. And actually, we should know what the research is there in terms of not just wanting to make a more equitable and and unjust country to live in, but also one that brings about these goals. So can you flesh out in terms of the some of the overall the big general concepts that you've studied? What do you find the relationship to be between having a good solid rule of law and then first economic development and second, bring it about stability and security for people?
Kristina Simion 46:39
I think that the issue is that a lot of people sort of presumes that if you have rule of law, you will have more economic investments. And that's a good thing for economic stability. And it's not necessarily true, if we look at countries in transition and countries, especially transitioning from authoritarian rule. We know that China has achieved a great deal of development and economic development, without the substantive rule of law that we're talking about. But nevertheless, with you know, the formal or thin rule of law, law, law and order focus that they have. So it's stronger than that, I want to challenge that idea that one is sort of needed for the other. And if we look at Myanmar, for example, and we know now even with military coup, you have a lot of companies staying behind so so a democratic system is not necessarily something that that foreign investors always look for, they also know that they can make a lot of economic opportunities without that. And also their foreign investors were able to access a parallel system with international arbitration because they knew that they could not take their cases, to ordinary courts. So that apart, I mean, for our country and ordinary people in general, of course, if you have a rule of law system in place where you can trust the courts, you know, you have your land rights registered and your company rights registered. There are opportunities for more economic development. But you can achieve economic development also with sort of strict legislation put in place under an authoritarian ruler, which we see in China. I think the backlash of that can be if you're leaving a focus on rights and People's Rights out of the picture, then that can potentially endanger long term stability. So I think some of the sort of quick wins, we might want to achieve after a political opening or a peace agreement or transition. In terms of just getting EU legislation in place or as in Myanmar, one of the first laws that were passed or amended was a new Foreign Investment Law. I mean, that's not necessarily going to lead to any substantive change in the long run. And if we sort of allow legislation that is not grounded and not focusing on people's rights and in sort of enhancing institutional capacity and people's trust in institutions, then it will just be a lot of sort of legislation promoting a specific type of actors coming in and taking sort of partaking in that economic development, but it's not going to benefit. Well, you know, people along the border in kitchen or Shawn, who are the ones suffering from from the lack of economic development?
Host 50:07
Right. Thanks for that. And how about the question about stability and security? How do How does a solid rule of law relate to how secure a country can be? And this is very important, obviously, because this has been one of the greatest justifications of the Burmese military, is that so much of what they do is because they are the only institution able to bring the people together and create a stability that would all dissolve, if not for them. So what do we know about how a, a rule of law that's followed in society affects the overall stability and security?
Kristina Simion 50:46
Well, I mean, the basic, basic sort of start for that is to regulate, and control like to regulate civilian control over the security sector, through constitutional provisions, of course, and we don't have that in place in Myanmar. So that would be sort of the basic outline, a constitution that guarantees civilian control, and that you have an independent police force that is not under the influence of the military, for example, that's also a very important aspect that will be regulated by law. And then the, you really need to think about the whole justice chain, when it comes to providing security in this case. And when we talk about security, we should just also, security stability, I mean, I'm talking about human security, not the security of the state, or the state actors, but more security. And that really comes down to the core justice chain, where people know where to take their cases if their security is being breached. And our main issue from Myanmar, as you mentioned, is that, you know, the security forces are the ones terrorizing the population. And that, of course, should not be able to happen, and there should be places where, you know, you can take your complaints against any official who is violating your rights or committing crimes against you. So I mean, just the basic mechanisms put in place that ensures an independent judiciary, you know, lawyers that can be operating freely without any corruption. We know there are a lot, there's a lot of corruption in the courts and Myanmar, independent judges need to be put in place. I mean, you need the whole system to ensure stability and security for the population. You need good prisons, where people's rights are being respected as well. And that again, we do not see in Myanmar. And people also they need to be able to solve their conflicts. So that you prevent instability from happening, and that they need to be able to do through, you know, an independent court system or some other ways. And that again, we know that that does not happen through formal systems so much in Myanmar as much as through non state systems or customary justice systems. But there, there needs to be this sort of whole whole package in place. But we also need to remember that key focus should be acute on human security, and people's experiences and what they need to feel secure in their daily lives.
Host 53:55
Right. That's, that's a good definition to keep in mind. And with all of these parts of the system that you describe as being essential into bringing into formation for society to transition and be under Rule of Law. What did you see with your research in the transition period with when the NLD had some grip on power? Obviously, not fully, but when they were trying to bring about some kinds of reforms and perhaps neglecting others? Obviously, the Rohingya stand out more than anything else, but what did you see about how the NLD was responsive or not responsive to different aspects of the rule of law?
Kristina Simion 54:33
Well, I think they I mean, looking back, I do think they did, in some respects, they did what they could. I mean, a key obstacle to developing the rule of law in Myanmar. It was, of course, an AES 2008 constitution which guarantees military influence of the parliament as well as As other significant ministries in the country. So I mean, even just starting out there, it's difficult to talk about the rule of law. Also, when you have such strong military control over the Parliament, which is one of the key institutions for ensuring the rule of law in a country, also in terms of, you know, rule of law, not men, the whole idea sort of fails on that, because some of the generals enjoy immunity from prosecution, according to the Constitution, if I don't remember incorrectly, so just sort of introducing this idea that everyone is equal, equally responsible to crimes, for example, under the law is difficult when you have a constitution as problematic as Myanmar's 2008 constitution. And it's difficult to talk about a key aspect of rule of law such as independence, of the parliament or separation of powers, when you have the military taking part, with 25% of the seats in the parliament. So I do think that it was not very easy for the NLD to foster the rule of law or promote the rule of law in that setting. What they did do and what they focused a lot on was, of course, constitutional reform for various reasons. And they were well aware of the fact that the Constitution was the main obstacle to rule of law reform in the country. And we know what happened to the legal adviser or colony. He was shot and assassinated because of that work. And this, I think, is an it illustrates how sensitive this was and how sensitive it was to actually work with these issues, and especially with constitutional reform. Except from that there was progress being made. international donors try to support the establishment of a National Bar Association. And lawyers have played a very important part in Myanmar's previous opposition towards military rule. And they play an important part for the possible development of rule of law and Myanmar, they also pay play a very important part as human rights defenders now and have have done so for decades. So there were attempts to establish an independent Bar Association. There were different training centers, I think there were called Rule of Law Centers being supported by Aung San su chi when she was heading there, rule of law committee before she was in the elections with NLD, which saw their success, but she was heading the rule of law committee before that might be a good thing to remember. And she did introduce the idea of rule of law centers where people could get a basic pool of Law Education. And I do think that's a good start to any sort of development or progress that people actually know can be educated and know, but they do have rights and that in some places, a system exists where people trust the authorities and where they can have their rights claimed against the authorities, etc. But there was also a lot of focus on planning. So the reforms being undertaken by the Supreme Court, for example, or the Attorney General's Office, much of that seem to result in sort of planning documents, but not much actual progress or implementation of reforms.
Host 59:08
And as part of your writing, and your research is about looking at foreign aid workers and development, people that are coming in and trying to assist in the rule of law during this transition period, when you were there, this time of optimism, as we said at the start of the talk, you describe how rule of law can be interpreted in different places and by different people coming up with distinct definitions and with this in mind, can we say that rule of law is something that is fixed on cultural understandings, meaning that it can be somewhat more relative or subjective, or is it seen more as like a technical set of objectives or a checklist that could and should be applied anywhere at some kind of minimum standard?
Kristina Simion 59:59
I think The ladder is what I have. What I sort of write about. I mean, if you look at how you can actually develop rule of law and achieve it, it needs to be based on I mean, the basic, very basic idea of lawmaking. Any lawmaking is that it has to be based on people's norms, and values. So you can never, ever create a law, for example, that that aims to be educational, to teach the population to act in a different manner, because it should really match what people are doing at that moment. So any sort of rule of law making then because rule of law is strongly rule of law as a concept, but it's based on laws, of course, courts, and those laws need to have follow certain standards, but it also needs to be connected to people's understanding of the law and the norms in society. But then, again, when we take the rule of law as a concept, and we seek to implement it, or develop it, or strengthen it in different contexts, it does come with this checklist. And it's a very good checklist and in any, and it wouldn't be ideal if all societies could follow this checklist, because who does not want to know what the law is, and who does not want the law to be clear, and clearly demonstrating what I can do and what I cannot do. And all of these things, but I do see the, it becomes difficult, then when you take that checklist and try to implement it in a setting like Myanmar or any other setting, without also looking at how you can find values and norms in society that matches sort of the latest legislation you put in place. And a key problem in this setting is that you start to amend laws, or you pass new laws that, for example, are more reflective of international human rights standards. There might this might just create an even larger gap between law on the books and law and practice amongst people who live in, you know, perhaps rural societies, ethnic minority areas who have very basic understanding of the law. So I do really think that you need to start local and any rule of law is local, really, it cannot be solidly constructed on a national or international level.
Host 1:02:41
Right? And did you see any challenges and the transition period of different foreign actors that were going in perhaps trying a bit too hard to impose certain things that that were international norms without a better understanding of how things were operating on the ground?
Kristina Simion 1:02:59
I mean, some of them did try that. And, I mean, one thing I see now, for example, is that back then, today, actors and Myanmar, they're interested in the concept of transitional justice. And, you know, punishing perpetrators, you know, to move on to make up with the past and move forwards towards the new transition. So this idea that you uncover past atrocities and crimes, through through commissions, etc. So I see a larger demand for that today and their discussions taking place and more interest shown and I think people in Myanmar today understand that this needs to happen for the country to move forward. And if I compare that to what I noticed, when I did my research was that people in Myanmar, were not necessarily ready for that. They wanted to forget, they wanted to move forward, they just wanted to go on with the transition process towards them organization. And there, I mean, I could see international actors coming in with this idea of bringing in transitional justice to Myanmar, and some of them had worked in Cambodia. And they really, of course, I mean, they saw the need and the importance of this topic, but it was not welcomed at that stage in Myanmar as much as it is today. So I do, I did see that. They were not trying to impose something but they had a different understanding of what was needed for for Myanmar. And in relation to rule of law. As a concept and implementing a rule of law. Again, I think it was more a matter of bringing in something that was a bit uncommon. Trouble, and a term that was not well translated. So my intermediaries, the people I studied would tell me, for example, I don't want rule of law. I don't want to talk about this term because it's it's not suitable to the local context. And there, I think there should have been better assessments in the beginning or more discussions about how do we package these reform programs in a suitable manner. But I don't think it's not necessarily always about imposing things. It's also about a lack of knowledge, lack of understanding, culture or linguistics.
Host 1:05:41
That's that's good to know. And I'm glad you brought up the concept of intermediary that was where I wanted to go. Next, you write quite a bit about the role of intermediaries in the transition period, and in relation to rule of law. So can you take a moment to define what what is an intermediary? And how are they connected with the rule of law, especially in Myanmar during this period?
Kristina Simion 1:06:02
Well, I will. Yeah, what is the intermediary? It is fascinating that, and I think about that I was thinking about that, recently, why I'm so fascinated by the intermediary. And it started out because I, myself, I have a background working on rule of law, development, more, more in the policy field rather than implementing. But on one of my trips, I met this lawyer, specie lawyer who was working on a large EU funded project in Uzbekistan. And he told me that he felt very frustrated, because he was working with the national government on the one side, and the EU project on the other side. And he said, I can see both sides getting things very wrong. They don't understand each other, they're doing the wrong things. And I'm stuck here in the middle with important information, but I can't reveal it to either side, I feel very frustrated, I feel stuck in the middle. And to me, that sort of raised my interest in this intermediary role, or this middleman, individual or woman who's stuck in the middle position. And what I could also see is that these people are often I mean, they're common feature throughout history. So the colonial intervenors had, you know, village headman or different intermediaries that they controlled their territories through or communicated with local populations. You had them, you know, in, in the indigenous communities in the Americas before that. So all throughout history through a when you have had certain sort of foreign powers intervening in specific ways or certain ways, this intermediary role has emerged. And the intermediary, and I, I do I find similarities between intermediaries I studied in Myanmar with, you know, some of the intermediaries that were being used a long time ago, indigenous communities in South America. But they often they're often characterized as someone who's bilingual, they might be a mixed race. In the case of Myanmar, they were foreign educated, they had sort of been prepared during previous decades of military rules. So they have been sent. They had been taking part in English classes in English training, with also some political influences. But it's often this person who has a way to communicate with both sides. And when I talk about both sides, I mean, the national or local populations in their culture, and this for an intervener and the foreign arena, it can be from the Central State as compared to a rural or rural community, or it can be an International Development Agency, or a colonial power. So it's just this aspect that some someone from from the outside is coming to a community, and then you need someone to help communicate in between these different communities. So you have the intermediary who is there to translate different contexts or different concepts or just pure communications. You have the intermediary, who is there for trust building because you might not trust the outsider, but you trust this intermediate a bit more because you know, he wears the same clothes as you do or speak the same language. And you also have an intermediary They're to mediate in terms of any conflict emerges between these two groups. And this is, of course, a very simplified description of the intermediary. And reality is a lot more complex than this. And you don't always have two sides. But in my case, I had I have a background as a lawyer, but I never worked with practical law. But I worked in, as I mentioned, with the policy field in this. And I've always just been very interested in how the rule of law as a concept and how you work with it, and how you try to work with it. So, but I mean, I think my my interest in intermediaries, for some reason is actually even broader than that. So sometimes I think I could have done my study of sort of rural development projects or water sanitation projects and looked at intermediaries in a way. But then, I mean, as you saw in our previous discussion, rule of law is still something I feel very strongly about. But the rule of law then becomes a way for me to situate my study of intermediaries. So I use these rule of law projects in Myanmar as a background to emphasizing the role of intermediaries. And Myanmar, at that point of time was also an excellent sort of site to study the movements and activities of intermediaries.
Host 1:11:33
Right, thanks for that. So looking more into intermediaries, it's as you detail in the book, it's quite an important position. It's also quite stressful, which we'll get into later. But in terms of the importance and the control that some intermediaries have, what kind of influences can they exert, especially on this relationship between the foreign actors and the their own local community and government?
Kristina Simion 1:11:58
Well, they really enjoy a high degree of influence. So they have a lot of power. And I think this is also sort of a key point to be made. And something that is so easily ignored or forgotten, amongst sort of the international community, or on the one hand, donors know that they are dependent on these intermediaries that at least in the Myanmar case, I don't think they know actually how much dependent they are on them, or how little they would be able to do without them. And in the Myanmar case, that was really what became obvious. And some of my internode, the intermediaries, I called them my intermediates. Of course, that's not correct to say that there my, the people I had an opportunity to study and spend a lot of time with, but they would tell me things like, you know, this talking about an international agency, like they could do nothing without us or are we enable these projects because we liked this person. And it became obvious to me that this really was the case that a lot of international organizations were completely dependent on the intermediary. And of course, this also leads to question of who's doing development and how an international organization Stan wanted to put a lot of power in the hands of the intermediary, who they would call maybe their local staff, etc. But then also became obvious sometimes that intermediary, did not necessarily want to be, you know, the manager of this international organizations local office, because they had their own political interests or interested stretch beyond the work they did for the donor. So through their intermediary role, they could, you know, profit from the capital they gained, working from an international donor, but also use that capital to gain other sort of, for example, political gains and strengthen their political capital in their local areas. So it was really this dynamic role. But then, of course, there were also negative aspects connected to that role. But in terms of their influence, yes, I mean, internationals who came into Myanmar did not speak the language, they did not understand the culture, necessarily in the beginning. So intermediaries would translate things and that would be completely in their hands. And as they told me, you know, I put a lot of values into my translations or, you know, I change translations I use many language tricks and the intermediaries, they did not necessarily see that as a problem. But for internationals, that becomes a problem when they are sort of expecting this word to word interpretation. It was also obvious that sometimes projects would be located in areas that intermediaries controlled for various reasons, because of lack of access, maybe to other areas. So in several ways they would implement funding, or the development projects and their implementation. And I knew for sure, this might be the only way to do development. But I do think a key problem with that is that you might, I mean, it's easy to look for, for individuals that speak good English that you can communicate with, because these intermediaries are fluent in English, so they can communicate with foreign donors. And it then becomes it's quite easy to overlook people who might have actual influence in local societies or national levels. But that cannot communicate with foreign donors. And I'm thinking particularly here, about many of the lawyers in Myanmar who have, you know, worked for change and development for several years, but do not necessarily speak good English, and especially senior lawyers. And my sentiment was that they were they fell quite overlooked with the arrival of foreign donors working on rule of law, and the fact that they employed very junior people, but that spoke good English and then could sort of match the rhetoric that foreign donors used. So they could stand up at conferences, you easily talk about rule of law, human rights, etc.
Host 1:16:52
That's really interesting. And it brings another personal anecdote to mind with that, just thinking about foreign experts or foreign professionals in their own field and country that come in and try to do more or less give the same kind of training or program or administration as there used to elsewhere and not understanding why it's not working. And one of the, one of the incidents that comes to mind and hearing that is, before the transition when I was living here, I must have been about 2011 or so there was there was a foreign trainer that came in to give a big seminar to hundreds of people and I was invited to attend. And one of the in one of the courses they gave there was I can't quite remember what the meaning of the workshop was. But there was some kind of analogy being given to Coca Cola. And to the ubiquitousness of Coca Cola how it's it's everywhere. And it's something that you can buy cheaply. And it's in you know, every every little part of the world is just something easily available anywhere you want to get it. But at this time in Myanmar, Myanmar was one of like three countries in the world at this point that did not have a coke bottling plant. And so Coke was available in Myanmar, but it was available basically through smuggling it from Thailand and at the hugely marked up prices. So it was like, you know, $1, or two a bottle from a from a Thai bottling plant. And it was the kind of thing you'd have like upscale restaurants or like a special birthday party, something that that you wouldn't have very often and that you kind of treasure when you did, and that poor people would would never have back then that was Star cola and these different, these different Myanmar brands that were trying to, to make their own their own kind of Cola company. And, and so the entire point of the workshop was completely lost because he's representing Coca Cola as it's understood in America and in so many other countries, but in a way that no Burmese person understands it, because he does not understand he has not understood at that point, I'm giving the workshop he had no understanding of the role that coke actually had in the society that he was trying to do the training in and just the the way that he was missing was so glaring to me and it was so obvious that no one got what he was trying to bring as the analogy and after the workshop, no one told him that no one for various reasons of shyness or not wanting to be rude, or perhaps not really even getting what was being missed. For those that that hadn't traveled. He walked away feeling he had probably given some very good points, some very good workshops, and yet the because he didn't understand have an understanding of local culture. This concept that worked in so many other places just went over everyone's head here. And that at that time, I was leading training courses I was working through to the American Center at that time. And we were making a huge effort in our courses to really understand the conditions people were operating in with making site visits and needs assessments and, and everything else but beyond that we were going beyond training the participants that came to our course and trying and implementing a training of trainers course as a to t, where we would just instill the training methodology that that we were implementing as foreigners into bringing that into a local population. So that knowing that they were the best administrators of once they got the concepts of training that we were implementing that they could do a far better job with bringing those into into a local culture and language and needs and everything else. And so I think this stories like this really highlight the dangers of, of missing things that would be obvious to the reality of everyone living in Myanmar. And yet, for those that had been in many other countries in the world that were not Myanmar, would make assumptions that they just simply wouldn't get. And, and so, that brings the intermediaries in the in the middle of this where they they are trying to negotiate between a the foreign actors that are coming in and trying to bring certain values or norms that they want implemented. And the intermediate is trying to understand what that is, while also having, obviously a much deeper understanding of those local cultures and values and possibilities and realities and everything else. And as in the example of that Coca Cola incident, you you have to have some kind of negotiation, meaning you have to have some kind of tutorial of understanding both what is meant from one side and what actually exists on the other and to be able to relay that. And towards this and you you called you. You noticed that in Myanmar, these intermediaries were also somewhat moral entrepreneurs in their ability to be able to negotiate between what the realities were on the ground and what these foreign actors wanted. So I'm wondering, first, just your thoughts on that anecdote. And if you if, if that rings, any bells resonates with with anything you saw, and then looking at this role of moral entrepreneurs that that you describe of the intermediaries?
Kristina Simion 1:22:20
Well, your anecdote really resonated to me. And I remember my childhood in communist Romania, where I got to drink, because it was partly foreign. So I got to drink Coke, smuggled into a restaurant from tea pot. And I remember even as a child, I was thinking, why, why do I get this coke when I know that kids out here would die to have a sip of water, that I can drink freely when I'm back in Sweden. But it is interesting how how, and I saw this quite recently, as well as well, you know, for and so called experts. And this is another issue that sometimes, you know, people on the ground, they actually want foreign experts or or they their idea of a foreign expert. And this also becomes a bit problematic. And I told someone today, you know, I can't answer that question, because you're the one who can answer that question better than I do. And the reply was, but you're the foreign expert. So I wanted to ask you since you're here, again, I said it's not my question to reply to accept don't have an answer. And not just because I'm not I don't know the answer, but because it's not my, my answer to give. But I do. See how disempowering this is. So if you're not well prepared, and in your case, that guy should have, you know, made sure before he based his whole presentation on that, that people actually drink Coke. And if they don't drink Coke, what do they drink, if he would have sort of enrolled a local drink in that presentation, perhaps it would have been a great success. And I have also seen, so called, again, foreign experts coming in with these workshop programs or outlines for development for a training course, for example. And it's just so advanced, and it's way too advanced. Even not just for the Myanmar setting or not. But when it's too advanced, or just not matched with local realities, then it really is disempowering. And of course, if you go to a training like that, you will walk out of there and not say anything, because you will, you'll feel stupid, you feel like I really did not get what was going on. And one of the explanations I also hear then is that well, we could not have done anything better. We could not have prepared better because we didn't know not know enough about the context. And I just think that that is a major problem. Because if you do travel to a country like Myanmar or anywhere in the world to deliver a training you need to really make sure Are you know that what you're delivering then will contribute to people's understanding and do something good and not the opposite. And if it is too complicated or off track, it will just leave people feeling disempowered or stupid for not understanding something that they could not possibly understand because it does not resonate to anything they're used to at all. And you mentioned something about focusing on the wrong things. And the intermediary becomes an important actor there. But that also made me think of, for example, if you would come in and focus on the rule of law in Myanmar, and if you just focus on the formal court system, how inaccurate that would be and how problematic that would be. So imagine putting all these people through courses about the formal court system and what that can do for you. That would be also a waste of time, because people access justice in different manners, they go to non state systems, etc. So there again, you really need to know that you're focusing on the right things. And I should say, I did experience some actors. For example, I saw the training manual for these rule of law centers that were partly supported by Aung San su chi, and the Rule of Law Committee. And their training material is really impressive. And it really highlights the, what you mentioned from your work, this idea that you train people on the ground so that they can deliver trainings. And of course, in that you need to include a lot of focus on adult learning, and sort of creative ways of basing a discussion base that sort of take stock of people's values and ideas and understandings of things rather than just teaching them something and telling them what to think. In terms of intermediaries being moral entrepreneurs. I think this connects a bit to what I mentioned previously, that they had, they had goals that stretch beyond the work they did for international donors, and they had often had political interests. And they use their opportunities to sort of promote their own understanding of concepts. So while they were, for example, doing translations, they sometime infused, and I'm quoting here, you know, if you use translations with their own values, or ideas, because they wanted to promote something, the morally felt was the right thing to promote. So, and that, of course, also connects to their background, which was often in political activism. And they were just used to operating in that way for so long.
Host 1:28:00
Right. And I think going a bit deeper into who these intermediaries are, and how they came to occupy this really important, yet somewhat invisible position, who generally are these intermediaries? What is their competition to become one? What kind of background do they usually have? How are they found? What can you tell us about the kinds of people that have become intermediaries in the transition period in Myanmar, in the 2000 10s,
Kristina Simion 1:28:27
a lot of them had been attending classes, like book studies, now the study, study group at the American Center or English classes at the British Council. So the office said that we know each other from from the dark days, we all went to, to English together at the British Council, and I did see that there was some sort of strategy but quite low key informal strategy being undertaken out of that, but that also, of course, steer them towards being politically active for the National League, democracy or similar parties. So it was rather political activists or people with a tradition, a history of political activism. Some of them had been to prison. Not all of them had a legal background, but almost all of them had worked for international donors during during previous decades but not within the fields of law and governance, rule of law, because that had not been focused on previously, but they had all worked with international donors somehow, for example, for with livelihoods when that was an accepted area for donors to focus on. Many of them had been selected to go abroad to study for a semester or through a master's program so they had been won some of the lucky few that were able to leave the country for that. They all spoke good English. But what was difficult for for foreign donors? And they said, You know, I want one of those. This is what one of them told me, I want one of those. And I said, but what do you mean one of those, I will an English speaker, an English speaking lawyer, so a Myanmar lawyer who is also fluent in English, and that was apparently really difficult to find. So, and a lot of the most influential intermediaries in the rule of law field, were actually not lawyers. And the reason for that was that international actors again, they come in, and they look for things as they know them from home. So they look for an English speaking lawyer with, you know, the same type of values that they have. And then they come to Myanmar and the experience, they discover that lawyers in Myanmar do completely different things from from a lawyer in the US or Sweden or wherever. But they did then find individuals who had not a legal background, but that had other qualities. Intermediaries were also quite charismatic. They were able to speak fluently about human rights and different values that appeal to internationals, they had large networks. And they spent a lot of time fostering these networks, not always without the critique, and therefore an employer's. But I could see that many of them knew each other, and they were connected to each other in different ways. They were quite young, a lot of them. So they were not the senior level sort of people that often more often did not speak English. As good as these more junior people did.
Host 1:31:52
Right. And one of the things that you note in writing about them is that some intermediaries came to be chosen more on their personality and having some kind of friendship with the foreign actors rather than their ability, which led to its own kind of problems.
Kristina Simion 1:32:09
Yeah, and they would tell me, I mean, I don't doubt their ability, and they were definitely good at their job. But the issue was that they were, I mean, they were not delivering on the things that foreign donors were expecting, like they would expect, assessments of draft laws, etc. So like legal work as well, but they were really delivering on, you know, fostering networks and going to events, networking, etc. And it was also here that they were discovered, someone told me, you know, I was picked up at a conference, so this for an organization solely speaking, and then they came up to me and asked if I wanted to work for them. And I mean, I guess that's the most obvious way to do this. And I was at another seminar talking about my book, and this man who had been working in, think of us Pakistan for decades, who said, you know, I go down there a couple of times a year, I always meet the same group of lawyers. What else can I do? And of course, that's the most obvious and easy way to do development work. And it's not always easy for foreigners to access other areas. And, you know, you go to different conferences, with other internationals and people that sort of cluster in those groups. And if you find someone who is a fluent English speaker, and who can communicate with you and can agree on the importance of your project. I mean, it's difficult then to start to look for other options, I guess.
Host 1:33:45
Right. And I think it's, I mean, looking at intermediaries and their role during this time, it just feels like it was this perfect storm of influence. Because on one hand, you have a transition period, which obviously highlights the the last frontier, as you put it, the end is bringing about this, this this enormous interest in all fields and journalism and investment and aid and development and so many other things are all coming at once and so there's there's never been such an opportunity for these kinds of relationships, the people that are coming as we've illustrated in so much of this talk come without really much at all of an understanding of Myanmar society or culture or language or other things and so they need to help more than any other. And then on top of this, you also have the element that in Myanmar society. Having people having mutual friends be able to introduce you and vouch for you is one of the most important features I have found in that society. It cannot be overstated how important it is. And I remember actually being another anecdote just came to my mind I remember having a dinner with someone, an American guy who I was going to be opening a hostel with a Burmese partner. And he was, he was very worried about just making sure that the that that what they were agreeing upon in terms of how they would start this business. And the different and this was quite a, the partner he was working with was quite important in his own way. And whatever is level in society or his connections, but by the person I was having dinner with this American was just worried how to make sure that what they were agreed upon was protected. And he just kept going over the contract. He kept talking about how many times he had read the contract. And you know what, what he should be aware of with that. And it was me and several other expats who had been there for longer periods, and we were just laughing and saying, look, it's fine, that you're looking at the contract, we don't want to dissuade you from doing that. But from all of our extensive experience, and all kinds of different encounters we had, we were like, Don't pin all of your expectations on this contract working, don't because that as we're talking about now, I realized I, I can now use the term rule of law to and trust to apply to what we were talking about more casually just that the contract might be followed might not be followed, it might it's good to have something written down you can refer to but it does not have the power it has here. The advice we were giving him is Well, for one thing, we were saying, you know, find out what he's interested in and show that on a personal and friendly level you support that if he's a devout Buddhists, then maybe you can offer a meal to a monasteries associated with or just something that shows that kind of familiarity and friendship. But more than that, we said the best thing you can do to protect yourself is find a mutual friend, find someone that knows both of you and make it apparent that you know this person so that you will be protected. Because anything if this person if this partner does anything untoward, towards you in future encounters, there'll be an enormous loss of face, if there's a mutual friend that can can objectively see that something egregious has taken place or something not so great. This is the biggest protection that you can have for yourself is just having this connection. And for you know, from my own experience, I had experience in business and Myanmar were where we tried to find professional hires, the you could say the Western way of having CVS and references and an open search and everything like that. And in our case, it was a disaster, I don't need to go into the details. But it was, it was about as disastrous as it could be. And yet, when we would have very close friends or associates that would recommend someone, even if that person wasn't so much qualified for what we wanted them to do. It was they they could be completely trusted because they had come in through that way. And I'm even thinking now like on the current work that we're doing with the nonprofit or with the podcast or anything else i and this is a an extremely heightened times in terms of trust. And you know, which I've been around Myanmar for 15 years, people who meet me the first time don't necessarily know that. So they don't necessarily know if I'm one of these foreigners that just popped in during the transition or during the coup or, or whatever. But I am very hesitant to make any cold calls to anyone at this time I try to avoid it at all costs and when I have to the success rate is extremely low. So when I'm given a suggestion for a Burmese guest to have on the podcast or for a some partner to work with, with our nonprofit, I, if there's no mutual connection that's going to introduce us and bring us together then often I won't even touch it, I'll just kind of put a note on there. This is something I should pursue. Let me check my network and see who I know that might also know them and can vouch for me and we can introduce us and then and once that happens, I mean I've had 15 years in Myanmar, when that first introduction is made and someone is vouches for me, or speaks for me or talks about who I am or what our relationship is. I mean, it is like from Ground Zero, like that person that I've met. It's just fine, we're tight, we're relaxed. It's easy. It's like I've known them for a while. But when when it gets off the ground from a cold call or from nothing in common or no one that's bringing us together in whatever form. It's whether it's you know, whether it's business investment development podcast, or whether it's simply my background and meditation, wanting to go to a monastery and stay at a monastery for a week and do your own practice. Whatever it is you want to do, having that person bring those two parties together and speak to both is just such an important part of Burmese culture. And I think that you know that it's obvious why in terms of the military rule and the the lack of freedoms they had, it's a safety mechanism. But in any case, all of this just to say I think these elements when combined together, they create this perfect storm have the power and the influence and the necessity of the intermediary and Myanmar. And given that you've studied intermediaries as as a concept, and in other societies and other forms, I wonder if you've also seen kind of an outsized importance of the Burmese intermediary during this period.
Kristina Simion 1:40:19
I was still laughing at your anecdote about the contract. This raises so many questions, I feel like we're on contract if it was a breach, or an understanding for how contracts were perceived in Myanmar context. I'd seen that contract. But it also makes them reminds me of, you know, some of my interviewees who are from international organizations told me the difficulty, the difficulties they had when they had to go back and do audits of the NGOs, for example, that they gave grants to. And there again, you know, this formal documentation of things were, they really perceived as a way to breach trust and not build trust. So even if they had an established as trustful relationship that was being broken when they came with the reporting. And also, another thing that came to mind was, how I mean, I had, or have one of my closest friends who is from Myanmar, and she was working for a phone, a foreign donor, but in a different sector and with the University and she told me that she went to the University every day for a year before they were ready and able to sort of willing to talk to her about a potential potential project. And this was someone from from the same country. And I think that really shows how difficult it is and how long it takes to build these relationships. And I definitely have experienced the same thing when you people come in and try to implement development projects. And as you say, as well, you can really see how people's faces shift from when they don't know who you are. And then until someone who they know introduces you, and they just become, you know, more friendly, or they become your friend quite quickly off the bat. Can you remind me of your question, hopefully receive? No question. Definitely I, there was a different role at this stage of time because Myanmar was such a newly opened setting, it had been isolated for so long, a lot of actors came in and tried to do things in the same sector at the same time. So you can really see and that's also why my study was, it was possible to conduct this study, because I could follow intermediaries in real time almost, it was not a historical study. I mean, if we compare Myanmar to other transitional settings, like Indonesia, or places where you have had foreign development intervention for decades, intermediaries have a completely different role, a different position, you will find individuals from the government side taking on roles as intermediaries, and there will be more established sort of national NGOs who have an important intermediary position. In Myanmar at that time, it was really difficult to find these into individuals, first of all, as I mentioned previously, because foreign donors could not really find the match they were looking for. But again, also because the lack of language knowledge and cultural knowledge, they were extremely, extremely dependent on intermediaries. And this, again, also gave intermediaries quite a lot of power, because they were working for several donors at a time when they could jump between contracts. And employers leave a position when, when a better one came up. And they would also be a bit careful with revealing how many contracts they were on at the same time. But But in that mix, they really had this important position as a connector and someone with large networks who could make things happen. So I would say their role was really key at that stage. And I'm not sure how anyone would have sort of managed without them. So definitely.
Host 1:44:29
Right. So I want to move on to present day and in the past year and where how you've seen things shift and where we're at now in these fields and trying to understand them. You referenced a bit about N ug and UCC particularly in and before that, looking at nlds constitutional reform, but in I think just from a labor perspective, I think many people have noticed how at the time of the Rohingya many Bomar especially were or seem to be against what they might have seen as foreign concepts of foreign of rule of law coming in and trying to impose something as they saw imposing on their country. And yet, now, there's very much a call for rule of law in the egregious crimes and atrocities that are being committed on a daily basis by the military. I'm sure that there are there are contacts and friends that you have had for many years that you've been speaking speaking to these last this last year since the coup and you've gotten a chance to check in with them, as well as at a bigger level like the the democratic movement, the N ug leaders, the UCC, how you're seeing rule of law, and perhaps even intermediaries, what you're seeing with that take place since the coup has has taken has happened.
Kristina Simion 1:45:52
Great, great. Save the easiest question for last? No, it's a great question. And it's, I won't be able to give sort of a full correct answer. But I can give my observation. And I think I mentioned I talked about this briefly previously, and my my own very subjective understanding in a ways that an impression of this is that people today as compared to a couple of years ago, have really understood that they can't go on sort of claiming that transitional justice or rule of law or foreign concepts they need to, they know that they need to apply those in an appropriate manner and in a sort of democratic manner that also takes into account human rights and international law, that that needs to be applied also in the Myanmar context. And there will be disappointments. And we've seen people in the civil disobedience movement, asking for the Responsibility to Protect, for example. And that is quite impressive, because you know, that there will be no other nation to come in, or the UN to come in, and actually fulfill that responsibility. But what it does show us is, you know, people's increased understanding of the need and the importance of international law, for example. And that is, of course, strongly connected to a rule a future with the rule of law in Myanmar. Also, as I mentioned, I do see that there's an increased interest in un and an eager to learn more about transitional justice mechanisms. And that, of course, also connects to the rule of law, because it is the measure that can help strengthen rule of law system in the future and institutional development, etc. It's also a way to make sure atrocities do not happen, again, that has happened in the past, etc. I understand that there's a great, more focus on actually, once and for all, making sure that past crimes and atrocities and crimes that we see take place on a daily basis. And I mean, then crimes against international law. So even if they're not crimes, according to national legislation, or even if security forces are exempt from from legislation or from national legislation, etc, the crimes against international law, crimes towards the population are being undertaken in Myanmar. I experienced that the democracy movement and actors affiliated to that day really do not accept that these will go on punished. And I don't know what your experiences but I mean, my impression from previous years was that people were so eager for democracy and for reform that they were able, they were willing to sort of forget about the past to some extent and just move forward. And the other process that I see is the constitutional process that the N ug and UCC are involved in and of course there they have identified the key obstacle to rule of law in Myanmar, which is the 2008 constitution. And they are investing, you know, a significant amount of time and efforts in making sure that a new constitution can be written for the country, a constitution that is based on democratic values, human rights connected to people's norms and understandings. Ethnic minorities, you know their systems thoroughly or systems and customary law, etc. It's also a constitution that will be based on public consultations, which also seeks to address all of these aspects. So, I do see that there is an increased understanding that Myanmar needs to be sort of on track with international standards and need to be on par with international standards. I feel that actors in this movement, they have left that idea that Myanmar is different, or that these are foreign concepts, they can see more clearly now I think what those concepts and those ideas can do, and those tools, if they're implemented correctly, can do for the country. But then, of course, there is this slight disappointment, as well. And there will be disappointment. But still, I think that there's a lot more optimism for the future, and also an inclusive future. That involves, you know, ethnic minorities and their rights in Myanmar as well. And when it comes to intermediaries, there are of course, new intermediaries peering or intermediaries connected to the constitutional process, for example, or other such processes. And I guess, the sad part of that, I see that some of the people i i spend time with in Myanmar, you know, they have gone back to defending political prisoners, or they're operating again, as again, as human rights defenders in a similar manner to what they did before political transition. And in some ways, I also get a sense that they are more, they're more used to that role than the role they had after 2011. So some of them seem to just get back to sort of business as usual, go into court. Business. And, and that's quite sad to me. And if, when I see that, I feel that 10 years of sort of discussions are being lost. But then we need to remember all the other processes taking place. And I do see a great interest for from many of the actors from the energy or and UCC in discussing rule of law and transitional justice and constitutional reform. So at least that's, you know, a positive progress. But then I key issue is, you know, how do you? What do you do about the state actors, and the actors are in place in Myanmar at this stage? Right, it's difficult.
Host 1:52:55
Yeah, I want to just ask you something you mentioned in the very beginning of our discussion, you had referenced that I think it was just earlier today, you were actually giving some kind of seminars on transactional justice, to people that were hiding in the jungle that just really stood out and was something that I wanted to come back to I mean, that if anything that just really highlights the and I've heard stories like this, throughout this revolution of the commitment and the sacrifice that these people have that as they as their own lives are at risk. And as they are carrying on their own mission to help those around them. And whatever way they can support the movement in general. They're also trying to educate themselves on these greater concepts and look beyond merely just winning against this enemy, but trying to set up a state, which is more equitable than what they've seen in the past. And I think this story of anything seems to seems to really bring that out in a lot of color. So I'm wondering if you could share more about not just that meeting, but what what kinds of conversations you've been having with what kinds of people and in general just how you've been involved with, with those that are trying to learn that these concepts and what you've what you've seen of the people you've been talking to what I think that revolution is bringing out a different side in many people as it does in human nature and how you're someone who's studied this for many years before how what changes you're seeing and those that you're starting to talk to.
Kristina Simion 1:54:32
While it definitely gives me it sort of encourages me to go on with my work and I'm you know, truly someone who can be quite skeptical towards this field. And I often question you know, I asked myself, who would want to listen to me talking about the rule of law, for example, like how what what can I tell someone that they would find interesting and that they don't already know? I'm and it's such a contrast when you're, you're sitting here in this peaceful city on Zoom, and then you have people with almost no electricity, hiding the jungle or having just almost sort of shootings going on outside. And they are actively participating in your training. And they are discussing everything that you know, people discuss in these trainings or workshops, and they want to talk about concepts such as rule of law or transitional justice, they want to know how they adapt those concepts to their own setting, how they can implement them, how they can work with them, how they can achieve peace, how they can achieve rule of law, how they can move forward with a transitional justice process. And the difficult part then is to actually provide some sort of realistic prospect for those these big, big ideas and big processes. But I think that the basic this this sort of basic, eager to learn more about all of this is, you know, the best start and a good start for now. And I can't I can't say much more about the people and what they do and who they are, because the sort of cultures Yeah, for sure. And I know, that's not what you're asking, but I'm trying to sort of give more context to it still, but I just find on sort of a daily basis, this urgent interest in these really big concepts or ideas and processes. And also people who are, you know, wanting to work with me, they want to do research or write things while they're sitting in these very tricky situations. And I think we can also see, I mean, except for they're participating in workshops and trainings with actors from abroad, we can really see, you know, how, how used people have become to using CEU, and online trainings. And also that I mean, the energy and UCC, I mean, most of their meetings, their zoom meetings, they're all in hiding somewhere. And they're conducting this whole constitutional process, and they're running a government over Sue. And I think that is also quite Yeah, it's, it's quite important.
Host 1:57:36
Yeah.
Kristina Simion 1:57:40
So yeah, I mean, anyway, we can sort of contribute to that. To these processes, is a good way forward.
Host 1:57:51
Yeah, absolutely. Well, I thank you so much for joining us today, it was this, this is a lot of research and a lot of background to try to bring up the salient points in just two hours. So I appreciate doing that for listeners that giving everyone something to think about and in terms of the background of Myanmar, in your studies, and then where we're at today, and using these concepts in this study to better understand what's what's happening at the moment in the revolution, as well as what what the democratic actors might be striving for, and hopefully, and informing, in some way what how we're in that future society that people want to build some of the constructive building blocks in, in trying to, to to better understand the country and better understand those needs from those actors coming in. So really appreciate taking the time and having that discussion.
Kristina Simion 1:58:45
Thank you so much. And thanks for excellent questions and sort of making me think differently or a bit in new ways about my research, I really appreciate that. And it was great learning from your experiences as well, and really truly enjoyed this interview.
Host 1:59:10
For whatever reason, even as the conflict and Myanmar continues to worsen, it somehow continues to be shut out of the Western media news cycle. And even when the foreign media does report on the conflict, it's often presented as a reductionist, simplistic caricature that inhibits a more thorough understanding of the situation. In contrast, our podcast platform endeavors to portray a much more authentic, detailed and dynamic reality of the country and its people, one that nurtures deeper understanding and nuanced appreciation. Not only do we ensure that a broad cross section of ideas and perspectives from Burmese guests regularly appear on our platform, but we also try to bring in foreign experts, scholars and allies who can share from their experience as well, but we can't continue to produce this consistency and at the level of quality we aim for without your help, if you would like to join in our mission to support those in Myanmar are being impacted by the military coup. We welcome your contribution in a form, currency or transfer method. Your donation will go on to support a wide range of humanitarian and media missions, aiding those local communities who need it most. Donations are directed to such causes as the Civil Disobedience movement CDM families of deceased victims, internally displaced person IDP camps, food for impoverished communities, military defection campaigns, undercover journalists, refugee camps, monasteries and nunneries education initiatives, the purchasing of protective equipment and medical supplies COVID relief and more. We also make sure that our donation Fund supports a diverse range of religious and ethnic groups across the country. We invite you to visit our website to learn more about past projects as well as upcoming needs. You can give a general donation or earmark your contribution to a specific activity or project you would like to support, perhaps even something you heard about in this very episode. All of this humanitarian work is carried out by our nonprofit mission better Burma. And your donation you give on our insight Myanmar website is directed towards this fund. Alternatively, you can also visit the better Burma website better burma.org and donate directly there. In either case, your donation goes to the same cause and both websites accept credit card. You can also give via PayPal by going to paypal.me/better Burma. Additionally, we can take donations through Patreon Venmo GoFundMe and Cash App. Simply search better Burma on each platform and you'll find our account. You can also visit either website for specific links to these respective accounts or email us at info at better burma.org. That's better Burma. One word, spelled b e t t e r b u r m a.org. If you'd like to give it another way, please contact us. We also invite you to check out our range of handicrafts that are sourced from vulnerable artists and communities across Myanmar. Available at a local crafts.com. Any purchase will not only support these artists and communities, but also our nonprofits wider mission. That's a local crafts spelled a LOKCR a ft s one word a local crafts.com Thank you so much for your kind consideration and support.
2:02:27
Get a lot of calls