Abstract
National League for Democracy shocks the Myanmar’s government by winning the 1990 election, and has become the symbol of democratization hope for the people ever since. This paper will reveal what have the NLD truly accomplished during the 1990-2010 period in the term of Myanmar’s democratization, and how effective it is as an opposition side.

Chapter 1: Introduction
Background
Democracy has become a justification for governmental systems to lead themselves into good governance. It is believed that democracy is a part of the best governmental system, which can maintained its growth and stability by positive and pro-active attitude from its people (Rosyada, Jamil. 2005:113). This led to government openness by check and balances mechanism, which open the doors into good governance.
The trend has finally reached Southeast Asia region in second half of the twentieth, thanks to third world democratization wave (1974-1990) classified by Samuel Huntington. Some of the nations are having dynamics to face democratization persistence to reduce centralistic power from the authoritarian. They are, to say: Indonesia, Filipina and Thailand. While Myanmar are having the exact opposite when their civilian government being overpowered by the military.
However, the development of democracy culture in Myanmar is still highly hoped by its people, shown by the 1990 election where National League for Democracy, Myanmar’s Opposition party, won. Although the result of the election was unilaterally voided by the regime ruler, people’s hope for democracy seeding is not lost.
As an opposition in an authoritarian military government, it is an obvious that the movement of the NLD will be strictly limited, for opposition’s position will be a threat for the government and policymakers. Having noticed the big threat, people’s hope for democratization is still alive. During the period of 1990-2010, National League for Democracy is still regarded as a symbol for democratization efforts, shown by the support from international world for Aung San Suu Kyi, or for the activity of the NLD itself.
Among the momentum of the Myanmar Government’s restructuration, one of the most interesting parts is to examine the existence and progress of National League for Democracy to fulfil the people’s democracy dream. As an opposition who brings democracy value in the middle of Myanmar is a tough challenge for the internal member to implement prior orientation for democratic movement.
Questions
Based on the explained background, there are three questions intended to be answered in this paper, they are: a. How is National League for Democracy’s role in Myanmar democratization in 1990-2010? b. Can National League for Democracy be an effective opposition party?

Chapter 2: Results & Discussion
"The most monolithically military-controlled in the world" (Neher.1995).
The quote above was stated by Clarck Neher in his book, talking about the condition of Myanmar’s government. It is stated Myanmar as the strongest and themost monolithic country under a military regime. Under the military general, Myanmar has evolved into a centralistic, authoritarian, and even totalitarian government ever built.
It was back in 1948 when civilian government led by U Nu became a pioneer of the new government created after British decolonization. Years passed, this civilian government has made social and economic conflicts that put the country’s stability at stake. In 1962, the military did a coup d’état over the government as well as abdicating U Nu. Since then, without continuing the democracy potential through new civilian government, military took over all of governmental process.
However, Military Junta doesn’t change Myanmar’s condition. It is through that single power reflected by a repressive military character which made dictatorship grew stronger. The government didn’t accommodate and pay attention to its people’s welfare. As a result, in a momentum, pro-democracy movement activists were arise. This movement sees imbalance of the Military Junta. It was Aung San Suu Kyi who formed National League for Democracy, an opposition group as a think tank to common goal: Democracy in Myanmar.
NLD’s Role in Myanmar Democratization (1990-2010)
Aung San Suu Kyi pioneered the opposition party National League for Democracy (NLD) in 1988, along with U Tin Oo and Aung Gyi . NLD is people’s representation for Burmese government transformation. NLD participated in 1990 election yang held by military government as a motive for aspiration-execution upon the tragedy in 1988. NLD has been the absolute winner with 80% percentage with perfect composition of 392 out of 480 parliament chairs.
Yet NLD’s winning unilaterally voided by the military government. People’s hope for government restructuration through transparent election mechanism suddenly evaporated. Since then, the military junta government acts more repressive, all kinds of government-existence threatening activity was restricted, even some of them turned into political prisoners, like Aung San Suu Kyi herself. The other pro-democratic figure, U Tin Oo, was captured when NLD won the election.
The 1990 election was a representation of democratic climate in the country. As Schumpter said, majority vote is a parameter for the success democratic culture building. Explicitly saying, the NLD’s achievement is a parameter for democratic culture building in Myanmar. After 1990 NLD’s legality as a political party was revoked, potential party members were captured and travelling ban was also applied to them. This limits NLD’s latitude and weakening NLD in its position as the opposition party. This situation became worse when Aung San Suu Kyi was put under house arrest, eliminating NLD’s main power to struggle for democracy.
Under the military regime’s pressure, NLD is having stagnation on building the party’s power and pressing the military. Failures often happen when NLD tries to set deal with the government. In some event NLD tries to shows up its existence along with the civilian, like trying to be involved in 2003 constitution drafting, which NLD withdrawn itself because of limited and under-pressured aspiration. Another acts is Safron Revolution in 2007, where NLD along with 1988 activist and civilian lead themselves into a massive demonstration.
2010 was a truly a new year for Myanmar, holding its first election after 20 years. Yet, NLD is once again failed to be a candidate party because of its illegality, they once more meeting failure when struggling for democratization.
The democratic transition Myanmar is trying to implement is caused by two factors: 1. Endogenic
Disintegration among internal regime, divided into several fractions with different interests. Discordance even happens between the highest people in command like Than Shwe and Khin Nyunt. In 2004 Khin Nyunt was deposed from his position as the head of military intelligence because of ideology clash. Khin Nyunt is a moderate who initiateschanges in Myanmar, like cease-fire agenda with the minority ethnic and dialogue with Aung San Suu Kyi. Another endogenic factor is military junta’s dynamic, where reshuffles and institutionalization often occurred. 2. Exogenic
Economic embargo and tour of duty banning from US and Europe since 2003 is having real impact for Myanmar, making her unable to build a stable economic since then. Another pressure comes from ASEAN, which fully support governmental restructuration of Myanmar through normative approaching. ASEAN even offer her a position as 2014’s chair if she succeeded in making good governance.
From those two factors, clearly opposition party has little impact towards government’s decision. In 1990-2010, NLD does not hold any important role and significant process through democratization. NLD tend to play its role as a mass supporter with limited latitude and only in grass root movement.
NLD’s Effectiveness as Myanmar’s Opposition Party
As Miriam Budiarjo defines, political party is an organized group with value orientation and purposes to occupy or seize power. Both coalition party and opposition party shares the same definition. The difference between them is that the coalition party is created between the parties who share the same ideology to support the government. Without it, coalition will be fragile and unstable. The opposition party acts as a watchdog for people’s issues.
The opposition party’s role in authoritarian military government is very limited, they don’t even have the chance to press the executives. Executive government has the power and influence towards every single aspect of the government, including media control, law enforcement, and group banning.
To implement a fair democratic transition process, one of the strategies used by opposition party—in an authoritarian regime—is to stimulate the activists, those who are able to lead the party consistently and unite the fractions with the same ideology and orientation. Another type of activist that may come in choice is those who do a movement in grass root area to mobilize the mass.
To take a magnifying glass on NLD as an opposition party, they are unfortunate to have themselves restricted by the government from any public activity, preventing the democracy purpose of this party. What NLD has done doesn’t give any impact to the military regime. As an example is the mechanism control for government’s policy, something that Dahl says as a parameter for democratic transition from opposition party. NLD even withdrawn itself from constitution drafting in 1993 thanks to limitation and pressure from the regime. For the worse, NLD refuse to continue the negotiation, saying that the government doesn't accommodate aspiration of the opposition and some other ethnic groups.
In 1990-2010 timeframe, NLD’s movement to struggle for democracy isn’t effective. It doesn’t even touch the government’s insider. Their authority is revoked, government often do repressive actions, and made some of them under house arrest.
From Magaloni’s note, referring to Dahl points of democracy, NLD does not role itself as an effective opposition party, this caused by: 1. NLD has become an illegal party after 1990 election, followed by NLD’s activists weakening when Aung San Suu Kyi is under house arrest. There’s no replacement for her and therefore ideology perception inside the NLD cannot be strengthen. NLD became weak against the regime. Opposition functionality doesn’t help much, the thing NLD could done was to support the mass demonstration without touching the governmental level. 2. 2010 Election has become a new chapter for Myanmar’s governmental structure. She finally transited into democracy by having an election, only this election was accused as a military camouflage for the new structure. The election was not held fairly because the majority of the voter was the trade-off voter. NLD and the activist had failed to mobilize the voter to vote purely and fairly. As a result, the people’s right to vote is controllable by the regime. 3. NLD has been an ineffective opposition party because of its failure to mobilize the mass to questioning the election’s mechanism. 2010 election was held unfairly, intransparent, and therefore not democratic. NLD can only states in the mass media about 2010 election boycott, without really give any real changes to the election’s result.
National League for Democracy (NLD) found itself in stagnation as an opposition group. Not only caused by the friction inside the party itself, but alse through un-implicative opposition strategy by their activists.

Chapter 3: Conclusion
Myanmar’s transition to democracy shown by 2010 election’s mechanism are influenced by internal and external factors, yet NLD’s participation is not counted as neither factors, this because NLD’s activity and participation are strictly limited. Furthermore, internal instability inside the party are tend to obstruct themselves from the purposes.
To be fairly noted, NLD’s participation to bring Myanmar into democratization only done in the base of supporting mass demonstration. This considered as a suicide for NLD’s internal body because those actions often led to repressive response from the government, followed by activists abduction by the military.
Moreover. NLD’s effectiveness as an opposition, who supposed to support democratic movement, has not yet truly accomplished. This caused by the party’s disfunctionality to act as an opposition and characterize themselves as one. Also, no specific strategies done by NLD to—at least—strengthen their purposes and orientations that has been built. As a conclusion, this party’s power since 1990 until Myanmar’s restructuration can only meet a stagnancy.

References
Marco, Bunte. 2011. Burma's Transition to "DisciplinedDemocracy": Abdication or Institutionalization of Military Rule? German Institute of Global and Area Studies
Irewati, Awani. 2007. Myanmar dan Matinya Penegakan Demokrasi. Jurnal Publisher
Wasino. 2009. Demokrasi, Dulu, Kini dan Esok. Accessed from http://www.javanologi.info/main/themes/images/pdf/Demokrasi-Wasino.pdf
Schumpeter, J. 1942. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. London: Harper Perennial
Dahl, R. A. 1971. Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press
Lijphart, Arend . 2000. Partai Politik in Adam Kupper dan Jessica Kupper, Ensiklopedi Ilmu- ilmu Sosial, Edisi Kedua, Translated by Haris Munandar dkk., Jakarta: PT Raja Grafindo Persada.
Budiardjo, Miriam. 2000. Dasar Dasar Ilmu Politik. Jakarta: PT. Gramedia.
Neher, Clarck D. 1995. Democracy and Development in Southeast Asia. Colorado: Westview Press.
Kyaw, Yin Hlaing. 2009. Setting the Rules for Survival: Why the Burmese Military Regime Survives in an Age of Democratization. Pacific Review
Levitsky, Steven, and Lucian Way. 2010. Competitive Authoritarianism: Hybrid Regimes after the Cold War. Cambridge University Press
Greene, Kenneth F. 2002. Opposition Party Strategy and Spatial Competition In Dominant Party Regimes: A Theory and The Case of Mexico. University of Texas, Austin.
Website:
http://abstrak.digilib.upi.edu/Direktori/TESIS/PENDIDIKAN KEWARGANEGARAAN/0808106 USMAN RUFAI/T PKN 0808106 Chapter2.pdf http://www.hrw.org/news/2010/05/26/burma-20-vears-afiter-1990-elections-democracv-still-denied http://www.nationsencvclopedia.com/Asia-and-Oceania/Mvanmar-HISTORY.html#b) The Fate NLD, http://www.irrawaddy.org/opinion story.php?art id=19488 http://bataviase.co.id/node/610712 http://www.hrw.org http://abstrak.digilib.upi.edu/Direktori/TESIS/PENDIDIKAN KEWARGANEGARAAN/0808106 USMAN RUFAI /T PKN 0808106 Chapter2.pdf

--------------------------------------------
[ 1 ]. Irewati, Awani. 2007. Myanmar dan Matinya Penegakan Demokrasi. Jurnal Publisher
[ 2 ]. Neher, Clarck D. 1995. Democracy and Development in Southeast Asia. Colorado: Westview Press
[ 3 ]. http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/Asia-and-Oceania/Myanmar-HISTORY.html
[ 4 ]. The Fate NLD, http://www.irrawaddy.org/opinion_story.php?art_id=19488
[ 5 ]. Kyaw, Yin Hlaing (2009), Setting the Rules for Survival: Why the Burmese Military Regime
Survives in an Age of Democratization, in: Pacific Review
[ 6 ]. The Routledge of Dictionary of Politics, 2004:79-81
[ 7 ]. Levitsky, Steven, and Lucian Way (2010), Competitive Authoritarianism: Hybrid Regimes after the Cold War, Cambridge University Press