Talk:National League for Democracy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NLD-LA[edit]

The NLD-LA has never been an insurgent army and has maintained a record of non-violence since its founding. It is an advocacy organization pushing for democratic, nonviolent change in Burma. Joel_S 01:08 EST 13 March 2006


Not correct. Although it has never espoused insurgency as a political strategy, NLD-LA members carried arms and wore military uniforms in and around Manerplaw (the old Karen National Union headquarters), and on occasion took part in military operations against the Tatmadaw. Richard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.190.32.114 (talk) 12:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ideology[edit]

Besides demanding fair elections, what does the NLD represent? In other words, what part of the political spectrum does it represent? Or is its only mission the push for fair elections and the end to military rule in Burma?

The NLD represents a true vision for Democracy, Freedom and Human Rights for the people of Burma. If the Junta would have allowed the NLD to take its role in 1990, Burma would be a very different place from what it is today. They are an official political party, with or without the Juntas "permission". PD —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdoogan (talk • contribs) 19:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't answer the question posed by the person above. I too am also really interested in what the NLD stands for in terms of the economy, government spending, subsidies, economic development, foreign policy, ethnic federalism, etc. Up to now, the only NLD 'platform' is about bringing democracy, human rights and freedom - these are good things, but these are activism platforms, not a political platform on issues such as economic development, health, social welfare and education.

Press freedoms and freedom of expression are nice things, but they alone will not put food onto the table, a roof over peoples' heads and security in their future well being. Most other Burmese political parties also do not have these platforms - which shows a big degree of political immaturity. Proper political parties need proper electoral platforms on these matters to make it a proper democracy. Just voting for a party because you idolize the leader or based on ethnic/religious affiliations will surely lead to a dumbing down and eventual destruction of democracy (if we ever manage to get any). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.69.2.11 (talk) 08:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My sentiments here are with the IP:155.69.2.11, the section is poorly presented. Social freedoms, Civil rights, Political rights - not one of these entities constitutes a political ideology, not even the notion of "democracy" itself is an ideology. The following is a quote from the late great Peter Ustinov from his autobiography Dear Me published 1997:
  • Democracy is no creed, it is a vehicle for the enjoyment of freedom, for the ventilation of thought, for the exercise of mutual respect - even in opposition. This is the heritage which has given debate its laws, the heritage traditionally so near the heart of this immense republic, and for which so many of our sons have died. When anti-communism becomes a creed, it fights with the arms of its enemy, and like its enemy, it breeds injustice, fear and corruption. It casts away the true platform of democracy, destroys the sense of moral superiority, without which, no ethical struggle is ever won.
The same applies to the list. Social freedoms, civil and political rights are merely slogans, at best they are manifesto pledges. There is one true ideology however, and that is Social democracy and that I believe answers the question raised in this section. In other words, the position of the NLD is left of centre, not liberal, green nor conservative, and not far-left (eg. Marxist) either nor extreme left (ie. anarchism). The position is clear, but be aware that this is merely an adopted ideology. Nobody can delcare a de facto political ideology until after the party is at the helm of Burmese politics. By the same token, nobody can offer any proof that had this party assumed power in 1990 that "things would be different now", or if they were, they could just as easily have been worse. I follow world events and I have yet to find the modern jewel which suffered years of authoritarian rule before a new "democratic" regime was ushered in either through uprisings, demonstartions or outside interference and soon the disaffected nation became happy. Either way, ideology is a personal position and at the moment, we have social democracy sourced and I believe that this ideology surmises all items on the ensuing list. On top of all else, EVERY movement claims those characteristics. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is still no clear answer to what the NLD's political position is. 'Social democracy' can be interpreted in several ways. Should the conclusion be that the NLD has no political views? LevelBasis (talk) 11:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Related template[edit]

{{User burfreedemo}} produces

This user strongly advocates freedom and democracy in Myanmar.

Chris 03:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

U Nyan Win[edit]

U Nyan Win is a clown. He knows nothing in most interviews with BBC. Maung Reel, Bangkok. December 19,2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.25.47.146 (talk) 18:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really feel sorry for have criticized U Nyan Win. During this time NLD faces an imminent danger, and I know that it will be unfair to him if I blame him again. He is only loading a big burden for the cause of democracy in Burma. Maung Reel, Bangkok. July 29, 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.175.204.10 (talk) 14:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NLD dissolution[edit]

Hi - I have a concern about the NLD being described as a defunct political party. Just because the junta has declared it disbanded does not mean the organization has ceased to exist. I'd wait until definitive sources confirm it has stopped functioning, especially as an underground organization. Shiva (Visnu) 20:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - Correct me if I wrong but legally the party has not been disbanded. Sure the Junta said it has been because they don't want the NLD out there unless they agree to their terms. According to the 1989 Pyithu Hluttaw Election Law they were registered as a Party. When the Junta failed to recognise the winning of the NLD they made a new 1990 Pyithu Hluttaw Election Law and new Election Law in 2008 which said all parties must register and accept the new laws, which are anything but free, fair or democratic. So if we were deciding if they were disbanded according to what they signed up to, then they are, to this day a legal party. If we go by what the Junta says with their made up laws, then they are. Suu Kyi and her lawyers are taking the case to Naypyidaw to demand the party gets official recognition from Naypyidaw. As long as the NLD exists and the NLD is in the peoples hearts in Burma. They exist.

PD —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdoogan (talk • contribs) 19:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Political symbols[edit]

The article says now: "The party flag features the peacock, a prominent symbol of Burma."

Correct, but the flag also features the five-pointed and filled star of communism.

The star of socialism

LevelBasis (talk) 11:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NLD Website[edit]

http://www.nldburma.org/ doesn't look like the party's website as it is written in Chinese and Google Translate doesn't seem too relevant. --2.223.250.124 (talk) 16:21, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Issue with seat tallies being inconsistent across Myanmar articles[edit]

We're starting to slip into a minor edit war regarding which Hluttaw seat tallies to display for the NLD (as well as a few other minor parties). I think we should stop changing the seat tally back and forth without a discussion. The style adopted across all other Myanmar political parties is that they are to display seats as of the 2015 election, not the seats held until the end of the lame duck session (of MPs elected in 2010 and 2012) on 31st January 2016. If you disagree with this consensus then can you make yourselves known and explain why? If we adopt the style here then it'll require us to change the Myanmar Political Parties template and all the other parties to reflect this, and then change them all back on 1st February 2016. If there is another discussion on this topic taking place on another page, then can you let me know where. Otherwise, could you please indicate your opinion so we can put the issue to bed and end this slow edit war. Maswimelleu (talk) 12:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the other side of the argument is that, because the Hluttaws have not met yet, the seat count is not "official", and the seats should not be updated until January 2016, when they will meet for the first time after the 2015 general election. However, I am on the side that the information currently provided from last elections would be misleading and inaccurate for new readers, and it is UNNECESSARY to keep previous information where current information should be displayed.
Most political party templates of other elections are immediately updated to reflect the most recent results, and Myanmar should be no exception.
- CentreLeftRight ✉ 19:35, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely. Using 2010 data would be very misleading and confusing to readers coming here looking for a summary of what happened to the NLD recently. I'm not sure which other democracies other than the US have lame duck sessions, but looking to existing practice would be best. If it's the same as what we're doing here, I'm glad. @Number 57: - what's your opinion? The format is now homogenous across all Myanmar political parties articles, but I was wondering whether you agreed with how we have it now. Should Myanmar political party pages be displaying their 2010 or 2015 seat tallies at the moment? Maswimelleu (talk) 23:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the most recent election results should be used, although it could be couched with a footnote stating that the figure is for the next parliament rather than the current lame-duck one. Number 57 11:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. The notes will be removed when the Hluttaws meet for the first time in January 2016.
- CentreLeftRight ✉ 18:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on National League for Democracy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on National League for Democracy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:15, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seats[edit]

@Tartan357 and Number 57: NLD has no seat from now. The army have dissolved the parliament. --Panam2014 (talk) 17:52, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Panam2014, it being dissolved does not mean we can say they have zero seats. That's not the same thing. Saying 0 out of 224 implies that other parties hold all 224 seats, which is not correct. We can either leave the composition bars as they were as of the 2015 election, or simply remove them altogether as the legislature is no longer functioning. However, I haven't found a source stating specifically that the legislature has been dissolved, so I'm inclined to leave the composition bars as they were. ― Tartan357 Talk 17:56, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that saying zero out of 224 is incorrect, but not really sure about what would be the right way to represent it. Maybe the bar could be replaced with text stating "Won 135 of 224 seats in 2020 elections before military coup" or something similar? Number 57 17:59, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Number 57, they actually won 138 in the 2020 elections. The 135 number is from 2015. The new term was supposed to start today, but the military stopped that from happening. That's about all we know now, so I'd leave the 2015 number in place until we get more information (such as confirmation that the legislature has been dissolved). I've seen that claim at 2021 Myanmar coup d'état, but it appears unsourced. ― Tartan357 Talk 18:04, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I think the 2020 result would be more relevant. Number 57 18:08, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Number 57, if it has indeed been dissolved, then I'd agree with your proposal. But all we know now is that the military stopped the transition and seized executive power. What I'm saying is we can't presume that the legislature has been dissolved without a reliable source saying that. Until we hear otherwise, we should presume that the legislators seated as of the 2015 election are still sitting. ― Tartan357 Talk 18:11, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:National_League_for_Democracy&oldid=1200348515"