All right, sit back and relax, because this is going to be a doozy of a review. I have many, many thoughts about this book.
First off, let me start by saying that I started this book with a completely open mind. When I started this book I knew nothing about Burma, I didn't even know that Burma was Myanmar! I had a fuzzy idea that Burma was part of India, and that's what I started with. So, my judgment of this book is not informed by what has been happening in Myanmar recently or the issues with the Rohinga genocide. I didn't even know about it, until someone pointed it out to me when I was 2/3 of the way through the book. I will try to separate my perceptions of the book from before that knowledge and after that knowledge.
Thanks to this book, I learned a lot about Burma. I learned a smattering of their monarchical era history, a teensy bit about their colonial period, and way more than I ever wanted about the military dictatorship of the 80-2010s. I know more about their generals than I know about anyone or anything else. Sadly, I know more about Ne Whin than I know about Aung San Suu Kyi, because despite this book being about her, I still don't know much about her. I don't know what she thinks. I don't know what she believes.
Before finding out about the Rohinga, I didn't like Aung San Suu Kyi. She just rubbed me the wrong way. This was probably not helped at all by the fact that this is simply a terribly written book. I lost respect for all the people who blurbed about it like Archbishop Desmond Tutu who said 'Masterly...superb.' I have no idea how he got that idea. He must have been blinded by the name of the subject matter and didn't bother actually reading the manuscript because this book is a travesty. It's incredibly difficult to follow, it's organized badly, it jumps through time like a drunk sailor. It starts out with her father, then jumps forward in time to her first political speech, the backtracks to her childhood, then jumps to her first imprisonment, then back to her mother's life, then back to her political campaigning, then to her marriage, then to life in Burma in the 2010s, then back to the 80s. It's incredibly difficult to keep track of the timeline. The book is full of incredibly irrelevant details. Details that only reinforce my impression of Aung San Suu Kyi as...superficial? Flighty? No, that is definitely not the word...Superficially strong and dedicated, and then inside quick to lose interest and wander off to some other thing...inconstant? The opposite of industrious. Quick to blame other people.
Why do I find her superficial? The first half of the book is excerpts from the journals kept of her political campaigning, and those journal excerpts are full of descriptions of what she was wearing. I kid you not. What she was wearing. Now, this could be because that's what her confidant was interested in. But at the same time, thanks to these entries we now have written down for posterity that she wore a different outfit to every political speech on that journey. And that she carried with her name brand French lipstick, sandals, and perfume. That she hated being sprayed by cheap perfume by the adoring Burmese populace. That's entirely too much focus on appearance for my taste. I mean, granted, appearance is very important, if you don't look the part of a leader, people won't follow you. It's just the focus of the book is there. Why?! Surely there were more important issues?! What were this woman's beliefs?! I still don't know! Nonviolence. Metta. Buddhism. Okay, but you kind of have to explain how those concepts apply to her political belief. The author at one point sneers at the 'superficial understanding of Buddhism in the west' but then never went on to explain anything about Buddhism!!
And wearing name brand lipstick while her people were literally starving to death?! That makes my blood boil, I'm not going to lie. When your people wear the same clothes for days on end and you change every day, I cannot help but see you as an elite of the elite. Maybe that's what the Burmese people wanted from her. Maybe they wanted a queen, maybe she was just responding to their expectations, but it seemed more like she was just a idealist elite who didn't even notice that she was living a life so far above those that she was with. Blind to her own advantages. Gosh. I sound like an SJW. I'm not saying that because she was privileged she was therefore bad. It just seems like that maybe a little bit of self-awareness would have been in order. But, then again, I may just be reading far too much into the discussion of lipstick and clothing and hair adornments and complaining because the mosquito net that people sacrificed to give her was too pink.
The part about being...easily distracted...also shows up in her life in how she started many different things and never finished them. She got a useless degree in political science because her mother forced her to, so she didn't put any effort into it and scraped by. Then when she tried to apply for something more interesting like literature it was denied because of her prior record, then instead of acknowledging her own fault, she blames it on her mother and gives up on the literature degree. Then she goes off to another degree, finds it too difficult and wanders off into something else. She decides to work for the UN, but doesn't like it either so wanders off again. I think that she did have strength of character to stick to her guns about bringing democracy to her country, but first she was like 'don't attack the junta' 'attack the junta' 'no tourism' 'yay tourism' 'no sanctions' 'yay sanctions'. ????
As for my opinion of the book after finding out about the Rohinga, let's just say I wasn't that surprised. Nonviolence is a good thing, and no one can say that Aung San Suu Kyi is not a courageous woman, she is. Anyone who can walk straight at people holding guns on her is incredibly courageous. But, I think there are other values besides nonviolence. Transparency is one of them. Transparency about what you believe, about what your plans are, about what kind of negotiations are happening and with who. Transparency was a problem from the very beginning of her political activity. Another one that I think is important is being open to advice, it seems like she makes her decisions entirely on her own. Her political rallies were her talking to a hundreds of thousands of people, but not a whole lot of her listening to them. I think those weaknesses are what have led to the issues today.
Reading this book made me think about two biblical truths that are really true. The first is that "without council plans fail, but with many advisers they succeed." There were lots of people who worked with Aung San Suu Kyi throughout her political life, but, it didn't seem like there were any advisers that she really trusted and listened to. Maybe that's the fault of the junta who jailed everyone and made it so that she didn't have anyone to listen to and so she came to the opinion that she had only herself to depend on which led to the issues Burma is facing today where she has solidified power to herself and is trying to micromanage everything and doing it badly.
The one that got me more was the verse in 1 Timothy "Do not lay hands upon anyone too hastily and thereby share responsibility for the sins of others; keep yourself free from sin." Gosh, all the people who were lauding Aung San Suu Kyi as the goddess of peace and human rights are really regretting it right now. All of the biographers including this one who describe her as 'pure' and 'ghandilike' and those who dare to speak against her as 'craven' 'cowards' 'traitorous' etc., must be looking back and wishing fervently they had waited until the eggs hatched before declaring them to be swans.
It makes me think that biographers really should wait until someone's political career, and even maybe their life, is over before writing their accolades. Interview them by all means, gather information and research while they live, but wait for a bit afterwards to make sure that everything comes to life, then write a glowing eulogy if it's warranted. But this glorification of living sainthood is a problem and that was the biggest thing I came away with from reading this book.