I visited Myanmar (Burma) a few months ago, and thus had the opportunity to get to know this quite interesting and so far fairly isolated country. Along the way, I got acquainted with the story of Aung San Suu Kyi and found myself fascinated by dedication, perseverance and personal sacrifice she was willing to take for her country and its people.

The recent election of new Pope, when, fully unexpectedly, the Argentine Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio was chosen as head of the Catholic Church, is the second event that inspired me to write this text. Taking the name of Pope Francis, he surprised and awed the world by his modesty, simplicity and dedication to the true nature of the calling.

Third source of my inspiration I found in a book entitled Great by Choice, written by Jim Collins - one of the most influential business and leadership authors today. Writer argues in it how much are greatness and success a matter of choice, as opposed to function of luck and circumstances. Examples of Aung San Suu Kyi and Pope Francis are strongly confirming his thoughts and claims. I shall try to explain in this text why do I think this is so and why I find these examples so fascinating, particulary in the modern world today. Veličina kao izbor, u kojoj piše koliko su veličina i uspjeh stvar izbora, a koliko sreće i okolnosti. Upravo primjeri Aung San Suu Kyi i pape Franje potvrđuju njegova razmišljanja i teze, a u ovome ću tekstu pokušati objasniti zašto tako mislim te zašto te primjere nalazim toliko fascinantnim, pogotovo u današnje doba.

I first heard of Aung San Suu Kyi a few years ago through media. Frankly I did not pay much attention, probably because Burma appeared so far away. I must admit that I was not so intrigued even when U2 few years ago, during their concert in Zagreb, actively promoted her struggle by making wider public aware of the fact she had been under house arrest for quite a long time. Many people in the world probably experienced the war in Croatia twenty years ago similarly – as something far away and irrelevant for them.

It was only when I visited Burma and got to know this fascinating land that I was fully able to experience the story of Aung San Suu Kyi as well, and fully comprehend how special it is. It truly represents a testimony of human greatness.

When I decided to head for Burma, I had not known what to expect there nor whether it was safe for me to go there at all. Just before my departure, media reported of armed ethnic conflict in the north of the country. Furthermore, two days prior to my flight I heard of the plane crashed there while landing. I still went. And for sure did not regret it.

Burma is a fairly large country, especially compared to Croatia. It has fifty six million inhabitants. Its largest city is Yangon (formerly Rangoon), with six million inhabitants and second largest is Mandalay with two million. The capital city since 2005 is Naypyidaw with about one million (third largest). Burma is world known for several things. Firstly one of the world’s wonders, Shwedagon pagoda, is there. It is actually the oldest one in the world (existing for 2,600 years) and is 97 metres high. It was constructed while Buddha lived and was originally 20 metres high. After several reconstructions, today it forms an exceptional sight. Especially during dawn and dusk, since light is changing then and also since it is illuminated at night. Furthermore, there is an ancient city called Bagan (once Pagan), with over 4,000 pagodas in a single location. It is estimated some 80,000 people lived there at the height of this civilisation. It somewhat resembles the exceptional Angkor in Cambodia, even though it is perhaps less mystical. A pagoda is a general term for a Buddhist shrine and can be a temple (which has inner space and a sanctuary) or a stupa (a solid structure consisting solely of outer surfaces). All most important pagodas in Bagan are iluminated few hours into the dark and are especially imposing then – particularly those well known: the pagoda (stupa) Shwezigon and Ananda temple. Most of you have probably heard of the song The Road to Mandalay. It became recently quite famous, after Robbie Williams put it in to music and made a big hit out of it. Written by a British poet, it is disclosing nostalgia of the British soldier for missing exotic and distinctive life in Burma, upon returning home from his service.Burma was also promoted by George Orwell who wrote a novel Burmese Days – a story of the difference between Burmese naivness and British cold and rational nature. Put za Mandalay. Riječ je o poznatoj pjesmi britanskog pjesnika koja pjeva o nostalgiji britanskog vojnika za egzotikom Burme. Uglazbio ju je nedavno i Robbie Williams te je potom postala svjetski glazbeni hit. Burmu je svojevremeno promovirao i George Orwell napisavši roman Burmanski dani – koji predstavlja priču o razlikama između burmanske naivnosti i britanske proračunatosti.

One of enigmas I encountered and quite wanted to resolve was why exactly Burma changed its name to Myanmar in 1988. Burma was the name known in the whole world and I was currious what actually happened? I asked many people, but not one was able to tell exactly why this change was made. Was it because of the name Burma reminds one of the British? But then again, the Burmese Kingdom already existed from 1828 to 1878, so before the British came. Therefore, this could not have been the principal reason. Was the reason to be found in multiethnic issues? True, Burmese make up about 70 per cent of the population of Myanmar and there is ethnic conflict, but, surely, name of a country would not change that. During the last day of my stay, my guide, on the way to the airport (probably having been convinced I truly was leaving and would not pass this knowledge to the authorities), told me a story that sounds so funny and trivial that it just might as well be true (as things usually happen to be). The thing is, his brother is among the most influential and appreciated astrologers in the country and knows just how strongly wives of the military elite believe in astrology. Needless to say, their husbands believe in it vigorously too. When astrologers were asked how they could hold on to power for a long time, astrologers’ advice was changing the name of the country, which they eventually did. This does sound incredible, but possible. And I have not heard of a single other explanation that would appear more logical. The guide moreover showed me even the banknotes of Myanmar are such that, for example, the lion on them symbolises the military elite, while the pedestal of Aung San Suu Kyi appears to be crushed by the lion (the military elite). This illustrates further how spread and deep is superstition in Burma, even among the ruling. Suu Kyi mostly uses the term Burma, so I shall accordingly mostly use it in this text as well.

Besides superstition, Burmese are quite obsessed with gold. Therefore on all pagodas and inside all temples, one can find large quantities of gold. One can also find an incredible number of Buddha statues in all sanctuaries and temples, which is exactly the reason why some may refer to Burma as the land of golden Budddhas. The country has just started opening up, especially following the visit by the US President Obama last year. This resulted in greater numbers of tourists (particularly from USA and UK), and more vigorous investment by international companies. This could be seen by the Nivea and Clean&Clear ads on at the airport and the fact that Nivea was one of the principal sponsors of the biggest New Year’s party in Yangon.

Burma gained its independence in 1947 or right after WWII. Gaining country independence could be closely attributed to Aung Sun, who was the father of Suu Kyi. Many Burmese refer him as the father of the nation which gave his very life for the independence of this country.

Aung San was born in 1915. He was the youngest of six children in a modest but respected family in Natmauk – small town in central Burma. He became actively politically engaged as a student, so already with twenty years of age, and soon became one of most noticed student leaders. In 1938 he became president of the All Burmese Student Union, actively promoting independence of Burma from Great Britain. Having graduated in law the very same year, he left university and joined a political party that strongly proclaimed national interests and the independence of Burma.

After two years of very active participation in the leadership of the party, in 1940 he initiated contacts with Japanese seeking to find an ally that could realize the goal of his life – independent Burma. Having in mind that Japan and England were on opposing sides in WWII, Japanese offered assistance in liberating Burma and promised the independence after defeting the British. Following this agreement, Aung San and some thirty like minded people went to Japan and were trained by Japanese in military skills. They returned to Burma in 1941 and thus the so-called Independent Burma Army was formed. With a help from Japanese, they defeted British army and invaded the capital Rangoon in March 1942. Immediately after taking over Burma, it became clear that Japanese would not stick to the agreement on granting Burmese independence. This was yet another occupation, only this time by Japan. Even though Aung San and a few of his colleagues were granted high posts within newly formed political and military institutions of Burma, the real power was concentrated in the hands of the Japanese army.

During the following three years, contacts with representatives of Great Britain were reinitiated and in 1944 the Antifascist Organisation of Burma was founded (AFO). All of this was largely initiated by Aung San. By the end of 1942, Aung San married Daw Kon Kyi who he met during his stay at the Rangoon hospital that year, where she worked as a head nurse. Suu Kyi is their child, together with her two brothers, and was born in 1945.

The Burmese uprising against the Japanese began in March 1945, when members of the Burmese army (lead by Aung San) and members of Allied forces broke the resistance of the Japanese military in Burma. Aung San devoted the subsequent two years to negotiations with the British, trying to win full independence of Burma. Burma became independent on 4 January 1948, but, unfortunately, Aung San did not live to see this. He was killed on 19 July 1947, together with six other members of the inner cabinet. The murder was commissioned by his political opponent – the former prime minister of pre-war Burma, who wanted to win power by this act but was afterwards apprehended and executed. The life of Aung San ended at 32 years of age. During such brief but turbulet life, he achieved the status of a national hero and many refer him as the father of the Burmese nation.

Aung San Suu Kyi is a daughter of Aung San, national hero of Burma, and was born on 19 June 1945 – so two years before the assassination of her father. Her name is a derivative of the name of her father (Aung San), mother (Kyi) and grandmother (Suu). Suu Kyi spent the first fifteen years in Burma, went to school there and later continued her education in India and Great Britain. In 1967, she graduated from St. Hugh College in Oxford, where she studied politics, philosophy and economics. Until 1988, Suu Kyi was in no way involved in Burmese politics and mostly lived outside Burma – with more or less frequent visits to her homeland.

Subconciously and somewhere deep inside her, she always knew that one day she will become politically active.

This is best witnessed by the fact that, before she married Michael Aris (a British scientist specialising in Tibetan and Himalayan studies), she wrote him 187 letters from New York to Butan (where Aris was at the time) during eight months period. In this letters, she expressed worries that her family and the people in Burma could misinterpret their wedding as lack of dedication. She also constantly reminded him that there could come the day when she would return to Burma if the people of Burma need her and that she would like to be able to count on his understanding and support in this case. Sixteen years later the time has come, completely suddenly and in an unplanned fashion – as things usually happen.

In 1988, Suu Kyi returned to Burma to take care of her mother who was already very ill at a time. It was exactly during this year that demonstrations against the totalitarian military regime in Burma occurred. In mid 1988 she gave her famous speech in front of the Shwedagon pagoda in Rangoon, which strongly confirmed her status of the future national political leader and national heroine. After the death of her mother at the end of 1988, Suu Kyi remained in Burma, since the ruling military junta intensified repressive measures against all who wanted to initiate any form of democracy. Increasing numbers of people repeatedly asked for her active engagement in politics and in the struggle for democracy and freedom of the people in Burma.

In the fear from her rising influence and witnessing support from a wide range of people, the military junta placed her under house arrest in mid 1989. The house arrest, with some breaks, lasted for more than twenty years. The military regime allowed elections in 1990, being positive in their victory. However National Democracy League, political party that supported Suu Kyi (who was not even allowed to formally be on the list), won a landslide victory with over 80 per cent of votes. Regardless of this results, the military junta never allowed the takeover of power or acknowledged the results of the elections. Therefore military dictatorship is lasting in Burma to this very day. The military regime repeatedly offered Suu Kyi to go to her husband and sons to Great Britain, but she kept refusing, knowing that if she accepts this offer, she would have never been able to return to Burma. The military junta would for sure not to allow it.

This is true testimony of her greatness and inner strength. Since her husband was Btitish whohad very distinguished professional and academic career, Suu Kyi was able to leave Burma at any moment and return to her family, career and cosy life in democratic and developed country like Great Britain. Instead she had chosen a sacrifice and over twenty years of house arrest in Burma, in order not to betray her struggle for democracy and better life for people in Burma. One can rarely find such example. Her greatness and struggle were recognised in 1991 when she received the Nobel Peace Prize for her non-violent struggle for democracy and human rights. Her sons received the prize on her behalf, while the financial award of 1.3 million dollars she used to contribute and invest in development of health and education in Myanmar.

It is a sad fact she was not able to see her husband during the final four years of his life. Michael Aris visited Suu Kyi in Burma for the last time in 1995. He died of cancer in 1999 or only a year after the disease was diagnosed. He could not get the consent from the Burmese regime for his visit to see Suu Kyi before he passed away. Having in mind that Suu Kyi had the option of a relatively easy and careless life in Great Britain, USA or any developed country (given her education, professional experience and British citizenship), this makes her personal sacrifice and dedication to the struggle for democracy in Burma even greater. Therefore from this perspective (of having an easy back up option) her life story and struggle could be seen as even more fascinating than Mandela’s stugle for South Africa. Suu Kyi was finally released from her house arrest on 13 January 2010. She announced on the following day she will cooperate with the Myanmar military junta in order for sanctions against her country to be lifted. She entered the Burmese parliament during the elections of 2012. Many Burmese say that, during the elections of 2015, Suu Kyi should finally become a President, and take over the power in Burma from the military junta via democratic elections.

A man might wonder whether such fanatical dedication by Suu Kyi could result from her great desire for fame and immortality and whether this is a form of selfishness towards her family – or it is sign of incredible sacrifice for common good. Each may judge for himself and take his own opinion on this. But the fact is that without such a people, the world would surely be worse off than it is today. Suu Kyi has definitively become an icon and, in contact with Burmese, it is impossible not to notice the exceptional admiration they feel towards her. She ranks as the first on the list of “50 Heroes of Today” by the British magazine New Statement and planetary famous Irish rock group U2 dedicated a song “Walk On” to her. Walk On, a na popisu „50 heroja današnjice“ britanskog časopisa New Statement Suu Kyi zauzela je prvo mjesto.

The second example I would like to write about and that certainly has some things in common with the story of Suu Kyi, but in a completely different manner, is the example of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, or the newly elected Pope Francis.

From the very moment he was chosen to be the new Pope, starting from the fact he chose the name Francis, new Pope fascinated and inspired the whole world with his simplicity, sincere messages and dedication to the true nature of his calling. Many were surprised by his decision (being a Jesuit Pope) to take the name of a Franciscan saint. His selection itself came as big surprise since he was not among the top candidates prior to conclave. Furthermore he has been one of the top candidates for the Pope during the previous conclave and so far no one who was in such position was ever selected to be a Pope on the next elections. Majority also expected election of a younger Pope who could revitalise the Catholic Church with his vitality and energy, having in mind a strong need for addressing properly numerous paedophile scandals and after not very impactfull mandate of Benedict XVI (following the charismatic Pope John Paul II).

From his very start, new Pope demonstrated no respect for some regular rules and norms that were customed for a long time and were not in line with his values and beliefs. During his initial appearance on the balcony of St Peter’s, when he was announced as the new Pope, he refused to wear a red robe with fur lining and the golden cross, but retained his modest iron cross and ring instead. After this he also refused to ride in papal limousine and chose instead to ride on a bus together with other cardinals, as he had used to do before. The next day, during the mass he led, he also did not wear the precious mitre embroidered in gold, but a regular cotton one, and decided not to use previously prepared speech, preaching spontaneously and from his heart. He then also amazedeveryone by coming to the priests’ house in which he had stayed prior to election, taking himself his suitcase and personal belongings and insisting that he pays his bills and saying that as the Pope he had to provide adequate example to others. After this he notified his protocol that he decided to live in a far more modest accomodation than it used to be the case for all the Popes prior to him.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio chose the papal name of Francis to honour the holy saint Francis of Assisi, who was protector of the poor. He was the first Pope who chose this name. His behaviour after the election left astonished the entire Vatican protocol. This was not a matter of moment or personal marketing which is best seen in the fact that all those who had the opportunity to get to know him while he was still in Buenos Aires, testify uninonimoslyabout his simplicity and humility. While he served as the cardinal in Buenos Aires, he was staying in a small and modest residence without a personal secretary and always vigorously stood up for those unable and poor, criticising consumerism and the selfishness of the wealthy.

Becoming a Pope, he confirmed by his actions that this position did not change him. He did not wantend to act as a conformist and in accordance to the papal protocol if this was against his personal values, regardless of the fact that this was customary for all his predecessors. A few hours after the proclamation, Pope Francis personally telephoned his friends in Rome and Buenos Aires, and he also phoned the street newspaper vendor next to the Buenos Aires Cathedral to thank him for year long deliveries and canceled his subscription for dailiy newspapers. The man was initially shocked, disbelieving the Pope would personally call him a few hours after the election to cancel newspaper subscription, but thought somebody was jocking with him. I think that this small detail shows that his care for those around him is true and that he truly lives what he preaches. Jorge Mario Bergoglio, as a cardinal and later Pope, could for sure live a lot easier and comfortable life. Instead he chose a modest and simple life which requires a lot of discipline and he renounced his personal comfort and all the benefits that Papal function has to offer.

Common virtue of Suu Kyi and Pope Francis is undoubtedly human greatness, dedication and readiness to sacrifice for their political or spiritual convictions. They both demonstrate true interest and care for the good of the people, especially the most vulnerable ones.

In today’s era of materialism, consumerism and foremost great selfishness of individuals, they stand out as role models to all of us. People today are probably more selfish and egocentric than ever before and their acts are largely motivated by their own conformism. I must admit that I found myself not very different unfortunately. Dedication to personal career and success are far greater than the one towards family or greater good of society in general. People no longer want larger families (or they do not want them at all) so their careers would not suffer and they would not lose on their quality of life in a materialistic sense.

Helping the common good is a very rare thing nowdays. Philantrophy is lately increasingly practiced and promoted by the certain number of very wealthy people (as Bill Gates and Warren Buffett) with stongly developed social conscience. Some may say that this is their way to buy their immortality and a good feeling for the ending of thir lives. However we look at it, we must admit that philanthropy is a noble and good thing to do for sure, but I don’t think it is comparable with the admiring examples of Suu Kyi and Pope Francis, who consistently devoted all of their lives for a greater good. Philantropy is a conscious and positive act of giving from those who already have more then they need (and who already entirely secured their existence) and not personal sacrifice for entire life or risking of life for a greater good as in a case of Suu Kyi.

The society in which aboundance and large choices available to people are increasing, it is becoming harder and less likely for individuals to renounce all the confort and enjoyment that world has to offer and to make life dedication to a greater good – regardless of what it is. This requires exceptional character and greatness that Suu Kyi and Pope Francis undoubtedly have. It is far easier to be a conformist and to make always easier choices. This is something we witness every day at work, in behaviour of our friends, in a way how our country functions and practically in all aspects of our lives.

Jim Collins, one of most influential business and leadership authors today, wrote a great book entitled Great by Choice last year. He analyses leaders in business sports and life in general. Key question that he wanted to answer in this book is whether greatness and extraordinary results (of individuals and companies) is a function of choice or luck and circumstances. He made a comprehensive research based on the many years of data about the companies that were exposed to the similar number of fortunate and unfortunate events. Veličina kao izbor Based on this research the author concluded that external circumstances are not vital. What is vital for the great performance is conscious choice to practice persevervance, discipline and a firm dedication to a clear goal. In aworld famous race for the first man on a South Pole, in absolutely equal circumstances, the Norwegian explorer Roald Amundsen had beaten the British explorer Robert Falcon Scott (who died during the expedition, as well as his entire team). Key for Admunsen winning was better preparation, more discipline and fanatical care of every single detail prior to and during the expedition. It is surely not easy for us to accept and admit that we are responsible for our own failuresand it is always easier to blame misfortune or non favorable circumstances.

Particularly striking is Collins’ story (that I was able to hear in person during his appearance on World Business Forum in New York) about his meeting with Peter Drucker, the creator of contemporary management and probably the most influential business author ever. Collins presented his ideas and works, to which Drucker wisely nodded, listened carefully and then, patiently and calmly, elaborated his own views and standpoints. Saying goodbye to each other, Drucker told him he would undoubtedly be a successful professor, author and lecturer, but that it is harder to accomplish making one’s life and work useful to those it is intended for. Before departing, Drucker concluded practically slaming the doors to Collins afterwords: “And now go and make yourself useful!” It was probably this meeting that inspired and motivated Collins to study so vigorously and passionately great companies and their leaders, so he would be in a position to provide concrete and useful advice to people on how to achieve greatness and excellence in business and in life.

We all have different criteria for judging success in life and somebody’s greatness. There are exceptionally great people worthy of admiration and respect who dedicated practically all their lives to caring for sick family members or people dear to them. This is indeed greatness. There are also people who manage great systems and impact the lives of a large number of people, who have very questionable human and moral values and behaviour – which is far away from greatness. When you combine exceptional humanity and sacrifice with a goal which deeply and positivly influences lives of the large number of people and to which one is fully devoted, we get truly rare, admiring and inspirational examples such as Suu Kyi and Pope Francis.

The challenge ahead of them is how they will manage the systems they lead or are yet to lead (as far as I heard from the local population, it is expected Suu Kyi should become the President of Burma in 2015). Their exceptional ability to set examples and inspiration for large numbers of people is undoubtable. What is undoubtable as well is their unreserved dedication to the goals and values they support and preach.

Their final contribution and heritage will be judged on how much they will succeed in their intentions. Suu Kyi in improving the lives of people in Burma with granting them personal freedom and democracy and Pope Francis in returning the core values to the Catholic Church – which is modesty, humanity through spirtuality and great dedication to helping the poorest and most vulnerable. They both have great tasks ahead of themselves. Strong character and greatness they demonstrated continuously and constantly should result in exceptional leadership and should finally lead to the results they aim for and to which they dedicated their entire lives.

As for the rest of us, these admirring examples should inspire us to be less selfish, more generous, and to contribute more to the common good thorugh our everyday actions. Even though we might be unable to positively impact the lives of a wide range of people such as Suu Kyi and Pope Francis, we can surely do something to improve the lives of people around us – each one in his or her way. This will for sure make us feel better, knowing that we used the gift of life not merely to improve our lives (by taking care only of own personal and material interests), but we also touched the lives of others in a positive way and therefore contributed to this world being a better place. In this way we can find our inner peace, so we can, as the mentioned U2 song says, continue to Walk On through our lives with our heads high, even with the smal steps compared to those giants who fill us with such admiration and inspire us to be better people.Walk on), uzdignute glave koračamo dalje kroz život, pa makar i patuljastim koracima naspram tih divova čiji životni putevi toliko ispunjavaju divljenjem i inspiriraju nas da budemo bolji ljudi.

Josip Muller, 18 May 2013

Note from 2019: Future events demonstrated that Aung Suu Kyi could not maintain her greatness unlike Pope Francis who certainly did so. One more proof that it is impossible to predict future behaviour based on the past one – no matter how magnificent the past could be.