I often sit and ponder about the world. Having studied politics, international law, international relations theory (and practice), economics, history, geography, and literature all to a decent depth I am able to look at a particular problem or conflict and break it down. I can understand it from most all angles.

One thing that always perplexes me is people’s desire to convert people to their side, to their political viewpoint. If they can’t convert them to their personal viewpoint they often try to silence them in their opposition. Examples of this could be communism in Japan from 1922 ~ 1946[1], democracy in Burma[2][3], or even communism during the Cold War in the United States.

They do it mostly for perceived political stability i.e. the current governing body doesn’t get its authority questioned. However, I would argue that limiting their freedoms, even if they oppose you, will provide one with the exact opposite of the desired effect i.e. your authority will be questioned at every turn.

If you ask yourself a simple question, who is the largest threat to a country’s government?
A) current members of the government
B) members of the public who like the current government or don’t really care one way or another
C) people who disagree with the current government but can voice their opinions
D) people who disagree with the current government but are silenced one way or another

Most would answer C. My answer is A and D - the people you least suspect or the people from whom you are inviting it.

History has shown us time and time again that leaders of countries are often betrayed by their second in command. They are already so close to the top, and once they are at the top they needn’t worry about possible punishment. Further more they also carry some clout within the body itself and as such can are positioned to make changes easier and smoother.

The choice a silenced dissident vs. a vocal dissident seems counter-intuitive - let me explain. A group of people who can express their opinions and wills freely, without fear of punishment will voice that opinion. This has a number of benifets: First it gets a lot of political unrest out of those being political. Just voicing their opinion will do wonders for them to think that the government is listening to them and that they are making a difference; Second it allows the current administrating body to keep a pulse on what the public thinks. Most governments that have this problem don’t care what the public feels about a particular subject, but even appeasing them ever-so-slightly would keep most happy - as they see “progress” towards their viewpoint.

Lets contrast this with a group who is suppressed. Straight off the bat you don’t know who is a potential member of the group you want to suppress. As such - every person automatically has to become a member of that silenced group by default. They must then prove that they are not a member ideologically in order to live normally. Almost immediately the ruling party has not only pissed off the suppressed group, forcing them underground to organize and plot. In addition they’ve also just alienated the entire population.

The only viable option is to allow political dissidents to voice their opinion, and listen to that voice. Government should represent the ideals of society and if the those ideals aren’t met or worked toward, it will be replaced. If the the demands by dissidents are just and change is needed, it must occur. If it does not occur the governing body’s time in power is limited.

[1] Communism was actually illegal in Japan until 1946 when it was legalized by the American occupation.
[2]Myanmar recently just recently extended the house arrest of Aung San Suu Kyi, a democracy advocate for another year. See the Seattle Times for more information.
[3] Myanmar. The current junta in Burma renamed Burma to Myanmar. As the United States government does not recognize the junta as the legitimate rulers, they do not officially recognize Myanmar.