Für die Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung (BPB) habe ich einen kurzen Artikel zum buddhistischen Mönch Wirathu geschrieben, der in Myanmar und weit darüber hinaus durch seine Hassreden gegen die muslimische Minderheit des Landes in Verruf geriet.
In dem Artikel “Nationalismus oder Terrorismus? Das Beispiel des burmesischen Mönchs Wirathu” argumentiere ich, dass entgegen der öffentlichen Darstellung, Wirathu kein Terrorist, sondern Ethnonationalist ist, da er ethno-religiöse Identitätsmarker instrumentalisiert. Das Beispiel Wirathus zeigt, dass auch im Namen des Buddhismus Gewalttaten begangen werden und sich sogar buddhistische Mönche radikalisieren können wie es auch aus anderen Ländern bekannt ist. Die Ursachen dafür sind weniger in den Quellentexten der jeweiligen Religionen oder in den Biografien von Individuen zu finden, sondern in den historischen und aktuellen politischen Kontexten, in denen Religion und Ethnizitat als Argumente von Akteuren ins Feld geführt werden, um Gewalttaten gegen Minderheiten zu rechtfertigen.
Der Sammelband umfasst 488 Seiten und kann für nur 7.00EUR direkt bei der Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung bestellt werden.
Judith Beyer (2021). Nationalismus oder Terrorismus? Das Beispiel des burmesischen Mönchs Wirathu. In: Terrorismus im 21. Jahrhundert. Perspektiven, Kontroversen, blinde Flecken, herausgegeben von Jana Kärgel. S. 332-333. Bonn: Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung.
This is from my twitter thread which I started on March 9, after having returned from Singapore and Myanmar. I am saving it here for better readability and for those, who do not use social media.
Here are my thoughts on the corona virus from the perspective of an anthropology of the state: Having just returned from 2,5 weeks of short-term fieldwork in Southeast Asia (Singapore and Myanmar) I noticed the following:
When we look at the policies of authoritarian states such as Singapore and Myanmar we can see highly diverse tactics in how to deal with an epidemic or pandemic – Singapore: closes its borders, monitors its citizens, checks every persons temperature at the airport and at hotels. Provides sanitizing gels everywhere, cleans public spaces regularly several times a day. Informs on all media channels how to wash hands, keep distance, when to stay home and whom to call. The population not only cooperates, but even copies the state’s measures (e.g. in restaurants, in gyms, and malls). Singapore reports all cases early. As a result, the growth rate of new cases has slowed down and the number has almost remained the same since February.
Myanmar – in contrast: no checking of temperature at airports, no entry denial to travellers from high-risk countries, no information beyond a couple of posters in downtown Yangon. No cases reported until today. No trust in the government, but a lot of rumours.
Then I return to Germany and I find: people buying toilet paper (?) and pasta in large quantities. People still not understanding how to sneeze and when to stay away from crowds. People stealing sanitizing gels even at my university – with the result that none are provided. Due to Germany’s federal system, there is no centrally communicated measurement in place, but an endless trickle-down of bits and pieces of news – all in the form of recommendations, none binding, in many cases not adhered to. There is a lingering sense of defeatism. There is also a slight sense of panic. The hoarding of toilet paper and the sanitizing gels standing in for trying to substitute danger with purity. The buying of pasta seems to be a post 2WW phenomenon, though. None of it is rational behaviour, but driven by fear.
Authoritarian states such as Singapore, China, but also Israel switch into command mode, and its citizens obey as there is no other option. They fear the state more than the virus. In authoritarian states such as Myanmar (and the current US) there is politics by denial: Business as usual, nothing to see here or to report. And in democratic states such as Germany, it takes an epidemic such as the current one to see where the limits of governmental agency are:
The downside of upholding individual freedom is that we are on our own.
While China’s effort has been written about as “collective”, as in this article, it was really a top-down decision by a few officials that was adhered to because people fear the state. While we in Germany are still enjoying our individual freedom to ignore governmental recommendations, an unintended side-effect of surveillance and micro governance in authoritarian states is that it ultimately aids health care measurements and helps curb epidemics and pandemics. And a side-effect in democracies and other authoritarian states is that the upholding of individual freedom comes at a prize, as does the complete denial of the issue. The two are actually close. That is, when it comes to epidemics, Germany and Myanmar have a lot in common!
March 24: I’ll continue: “Queremos o melhor para população. Se o governo não tem capacidade de dar um jeito, o crime organizado resolve” – This is a statement from organized crime in Rio, Brazil who enforced a nightly lockdown because they would take care of the population, in contrast to the government. Also, ISIS has warned its people not to enter “the land of the epidemic” (aka Europe ) and layed out a “sharia directive” that includes how to wash your hands properly.
We live in interesting times when organized crime and terrorists care more than the state.