With a personal account, you can read up to 100 articles each month for free.
Already have an account?
- Access everything in the JPASS collection
- Read the full-text of every article
- Download up to 10 article PDFs to save and keep
- Access everything in the JPASS collection
- Read the full-text of every article
- Download up to 120 article PDFs to save and keep
The National League for Democracy (NLD) won a resounding victory in the May 1990 general elections, but was unable to persuade the ruling military junta to agree to the transfer of power. The State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC) had initially promised when they took control in September 1988 that whichever party won the elections could form the new government. But within months they backtracked as democracy activists, led by the NLD, pursued a vigorous campaign for basic civil rights, including freedom of expression, publication and assembly. Internationally, the junta could not compete for the world's understanding against the iconic, charismatic personality of the daughter of the leader of Burma's independence, Aung San Suu Kyi. A more appropriate charge against the SLORC than failure to hand over power is that they did not allow elected members of the new National Assembly to play the major role in supervising the drafting of the new constitution, as they had promised both before and after the elections This article argues that the facts about the post-election constitutional process set out prior to the elections by the SLORC should be recognized if the continuing confrontation between the NLD and other pro-democracy parties and the military regime is to be fully understood.
Contemporary Southeast Asia (CSEA) is one of ISEAS’ flagship publications. Now in its fourth decade of publication, CSEA has succeeded in building up an international reputation as one of Southeast Asia's premier academic journals. The aim of the peer-reviewed journal is to provide up to date and in-depth analysis of critical trends and developments in Southeast Asia and the wider Asia-Pacific region. The primary focus is on issues related to domestic politics in Southeast Asian countries, regional architecture and community building, military, strategic and security affairs, conflict zones and relations among the Great Powers. CSEA publishes authoritative, insightful and original contributions from scholars, think-tank analysts, journalists and policymakers from across the globe. The Editorial Committee is guided by the advice of the International Advisory Committee which is composed of eminent scholars from Asia, the United States, Australia and Europe. CSEA is published in April, August and December.
ISEAS - Yusof Ishak Institute is a regional centre dedicated to the study of socio-political, security and economic trends and developments in Southeast Asia and its wider geostrategic and economic environment. The institute’s research programmes are the Regional Economic Studies (RES, including ASEAN and APEC), Regional Strategic and Political Studies (RSPS), and Regional Social and Cultural Studies (RSCS). ISEAS Publishing, an established academic press, has issued more than 2,000 books and journals. It is the largest scholarly publisher of research about Southeast Asia from within the region. ISEAS Publishing works with many other academic and trade publishers and distributors to disseminate important research and analyses from and about Southeast Asia to the rest of the world
This item is part of a JSTOR Collection.
For terms and use, please refer to our
Contemporary Southeast Asia
© 2007 ISEAS - Yusof Ishak Institute