A bottom-up approach to democracy: The

question of federalism in Burma

May 23rd, 2011
By Banya Hongsar, Canberra – Restoring Burma’s democratic
political system is the new destiny of Burma’s citizens. Different
approaches, strategies, and principles will have to be used based on
the concepts of those involved on the ground. The aspiration for
unity can be fostered in grassroots practice when a commitment is
made to uphold the principle of human rights and equality. The
concept of federalism must come before democracy in Burma, as we
have seen in recent political events.

The desire of all ethnic people to establish federalism in Burma is a

popular topic of debate after the election in November 2010. A
military-affiliated government has transformed itself as an
alternative government under the new constitution. Pro-democracy
activists and political resistance forces have been struggling to
foster a new united campaign, while the nation has been divided on
various fronts.
The question of federalism in Burma is not a relevant topic to most
of Burma’s observers and experts from Western nations. However,
most ethnic armed force leaders believe that it is only way to move
away from the current political stalemate. According to the UN
Information Center in Rangoon, “Recognizing the significance of
the government’s commitments, we must stress that
implementation is key. I underscored the opportunity and
responsibility that the government now has to translate its
commitments into effective action. Domestically and
internationally, expectations are high that it will start taking
concrete steps soon”.
In addition, a press statement by Mr. Vijay Nambiar, Special
Adviser to the Secretary-General, in May stated that President U
Thein Sein will be playing a win-win game with the UN and U.S.
engagement for a wider acknowledgement of his new government in
the international community arena.
The newly elected military-affiliated government for the Union of
Myanmar will not help Burma grow into a peaceful and prosperous
nation under the rule of laws. The newly formed government is not
committed to better governance or to sharing power with the ethnic
states based in parliament unless the local Members of Parliament
align with the government. Local activists and politicians should be
seeking greater political participation in local issues such as health,
education, and economy, while they also have to strive for better
access to state budgets and resources which are mainly controlled
by military-linked businesses and sectors.
I am a citizen and activist of Burma who would like to see Burma
transform into a democratic nation. I will seek a place to bring this
debate with relevant facts and arguments from the past and current
events of Burma.
A sensible way of building a new nation under a federalist model
will never be perfect in modern politics unless peoples’ participation
in decision-making process is in place. It is a new political ground
that Burma — as a nation that has to prepare that political
inclusiveness — is the foundation of building a flourishing
democracy in this century. A nation of multi-ethnic diverse people
has to support local and national policies that each voice is lawfully
heard and protected. The best form of federalism engages different
political interest groups and ensures that local issues to the broader
national issues on health, education, employment and legal
protection to all citizens of the country are heard. Burma is a land of
peace in the history, but the country has been torn a part due to lack
of trust and respect between multi-ethnic political leaders and the
Burmese army’s generals. For the last 50 years, the nation has been
ruled by military might and, as a result, the nation has declined, in
dysfunction and is marginalized in the modern world stage. The
Burma majority ethnic needs to address this decline and if modern
political leaders decide to pursue a federalist platform, then they
need to rebuild Burmese trust in their government.
The best model will include the principle of political change in the
country with a sense of social justice within the community of each
ethnic group and neighbouring borders. Activists, new political
leaders, and those who seek political power in the meantime should
foster a mentality of change in the spirit of evolution and revolution.
The seven ethnic states and regions with high proportions of ethnic
people are required to be incepted under a sensible constitution in
due time.
It is in Burma’s interest that the nation should be seeking lasting
peace and prosperity like other countries in the region. However,
any conflicts over issues can not be solved unless political leaders
share the burden of the nation on social, political, and economic
implications.
A federalist model in Burma should also seek technical assistance
from local, national, and international constitutional lawyers and
experts. Burmese constitutional experts and modern political
leaders have been working on it for some time both privately and
publically in liberated areas. But the federalism project like National
Reconciliation Program (NRP) and other programs like Transitional
Justice on Burma have limited resources and practical network with
grassroots inside the country. Burma’s pro-democracy campaigners
nationally and internationally are wise to set up a kind of “Burma
Federalism Project” locally and nationally with the support of other
civil society network. It is the network that could reach to local
media, civil society and other groups like workers where a
community education session could also commence within the
community. A similar project should be setting within the
community in all state and region under the laws that citizen could
explore new idea for co-existing with peace and unity in purpose. A
mentality of community should be fostered within the community’s
attitude and behavior.
Buddhist culture has been living within the majority of Burma’s
peoples more than a thousand years. Imposing a new institution in
social and political terms will require time and space to be
integrated within the community. It is not only a systematic to be
changed for nation’s prosperity and lasting peace, it also requires
institutional changes with moral responsibility. This is the hard
question for Burma: Can institutional change be achieved in such a
closed political landscape?
Western observers and experts on Burma rarely look at the nature
of the society on its societal and cultural functionality in social and
political terms, even though they have the best intentions for the
Burmese. They have been seeking a solution for Burma that falls
under the banner of “democracy, human rights and national
reconciliation” for some years now. A close-minded political culture
has been deepening among Burma’s people prior to British rule in
early 1880s. A self-observed community in religion and traditional
beliefs has been living with the mentality of the generation of the
19th century while open-minded generation of the 21st century
tends to seek liberalisation. Local politicians fail to capture the
changing pattern of old and new generation while they mobilize the
movement in the early 1990s.
After 60 years of militarization and nationalism of the Burmese, a
question of federalism in the 21st century must be examined based
on rulers’ attitudes. A newly formed government and parliament is
dominated both the national and state assemblies by the former
military personals. The ethnic leaders have been calling for political
dialogue both formally and informally to the ruling military regime
for over 20 years, but the ruling Burmese dominated new
government will never make or give a gesture for any proposals.
The ruling military regime lacks vision for the formation of
federalism apart from blaming the ethnic leaders and people with a
propaganda of “disintegration of the Union” in the last 60 years.
Despite ethnic leaders reaching consensus on many historical
accords for a genuine with a balance of power between the national
(federal government) and state governments by a new model of
constitution proposed by Ethnic Nationalities Council (ENC) in
2004, the military government ignored the initiative for once and
for all.
I will advocate and explore a sensible way for Burma to be governed
under the principle of federalism in the 21st century with a sense of
national pride from all citizens of the country regardless of race,
religion, and ethnicity. It is time that a mature political vision and a
bold movement among local people for fostering public
participation in local issues from schooling to hospitals and from
road construction to town planning in which each citizen has a say
on local issues that matters to us.
Although the question of federalism in Burma has been under
shadow under the banner of democratization in recent events after
the release of pro-democracy leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, the
aspiration of the movement has never been diminished among
ethnic and majority Burmese democracy activists. The only sensible
model of federalism will sustain Burma’s lasting political stability in
the 21st century.
An attempt at “socialism” failed from 1962 to 1988 amidst political
manipulation by the ruling military government. Over 20 years of
military rule will never sustain peace and security among the
community in the country and beyond. A newly crafted a shameful
constitution and newly elected government lacks federalism and
democratization with a principle of ‘free and fair’ society. Burma
watcher and prominent journalist Bertil Lintner warned, “Recent
openness in other areas should not be viewed as a sign that newer
leaders are more liberal-minded. Rather, this suggests that the new
generation is perpetuating the same cycle of repression, openness,
and then repression again that the older generation perfected.”
In addition, the Australian National University recently convened a
conference about Burma with an estimated over 70 guests from
researchers, scholars, policy makers from Australian government,
Burma democracy activists and speakers from the Union of
Myanmar. Some speakers also shared the view of the new
government is willing to “change, reform and cooperate” under the
new legislative framework while the majority are silence on this
assertion.
A lack of trust and respect between Burmese and non-Burmese
ethnic people, especially among political leaders should be healing
both spiritually and mentally. A sensible model of sharing power
and balance of power between Burmese- dominated officials within
the government and non-Burmese ethnic elites those who are based
in urban should be fostering a mature relations and win-win
positions for common good to common purpose. Lacking mature
respect and trust among Burmese and non-Burmese elites will delay
federalism in Burma regardless political conviction in our era.
An aspiration of formation of genuine federal governance in Burma
is not only a lasting political solution, but also a lasting regional
human security in terms of armed conflict and internally displaced
person. Burma will be a nation of progressive in social and political
order if the country is equally ruled by each ethnic government in
their own state and division under the rule of laws. A political
movement on a campaign for federalism will never achieved unless
local young people and young women in our generation share
common interest for education, health and economy development
among local Burmese and non-Burmese people in the same country.
New political leaders and democracy activists have little choice but
to take bold action on community setting where they could engage
local issues on health, education and socio-cultural development for
the best interest of each citizen of the country. Federalism is not
only bargaining for sole political power, but also for the sake of
sharing power, responsibility and resources among local people.
Hence, therefore, the rule of laws is the foundation of the movement
in our era.
I have lived in a Western country for more than 10 years under the
rule of laws, democracy and practice of federalism from local and
national issues. In Australia, I am informed by media, government’s
agency and public notices. I have the the right to be informed and to
be engaged with the issues in my local area and it has been a good
experience. I have been observing and learning from the practical
lessons that local government has major role to play in local
education, health and social and cultural development for the local
people.
It is Burma’s best interest that local government in each state and
division have constitutional power under a parliamentary
framework in which the government could implement
independently without intervention of the federal government.
Federalism like Australia has strong social and political capitals
because citizens are informed in all local and national issues prior to
decision making process through the government.
It is a good time that local activists and other new political and
social interest forces build a consensus for where to take it from
here. Burma will be ruled by military elites and its linked businesses
in the foreseeable future unless a new campaign for a genuine
federal state is formed in our new generation. No one will lose
anything by supporting a better and fairer model of federalism in
Burma. It is the foundation of Burma for the 21st century. Unity is
strength and diversity is wealth for Burma. U Ko Ko Hlaing said
recently in the Myanmar Time journal, “The president was ‘likely’ to
declare a general amnesty at the ‘time he sees fit’.” Indeed, equality
under the laws must uphold the rule of laws based on the principle
of human rights in this new era of democracy.
The president also welcomed those whose opinions are different
and wanted anti-government groups to participate in the
democratic process, provided they accept the constitution. This
assertion is not balanced, but a welcoming gesture for further
political debate in the country. On the contrary, Lintner again
warned that, “For instance, the new constitution gives the
commander in chief of the armed forces the power to directly select
one-fourth of all parliamentary seats, and allows the president to
hand over power to the army in the event of a ‘national crisis’ — a
term so vaguely defined it could mean a popular pro-democracy
uprising. There is no indication that Gen. Thein Sein has any
intention to change this.” Lintner clearly read the mindset of the
army’s general based on the history of the past and the present. A
closer look should be examined by local politician whether the
president keeps his own words.
A constitutional and institutional change will never be completed
unless an attitude change is accomplished among local people in
cultural diverse ethnic nationality. David Scott Mathieson, a senior
researcher in the Asia Division of Human Rights Watch, asserted
that “needs of local development in health, education, land
management, and economic reforms, including urgently needed
micro-financing projects. These fundamentals have been lost in the
haze of a system of control and the various responses by
communities to survive under continued military rule (with a thin
civilian facade for now).” Over 400 farmers lost their local farm
land from 1996 soon after the government of Union of Myanmar
(the former ruling junta) confiscated in Mon State during the
construction of Unocal –Total gas project for security and building a
new army camps in the village’s farms. Land rights must adequately
address in the new laws for the survival of local farmers and
peasants. Workers and farmer’s rights under the laws should be
debated in the local state and division assembly as an urgent matter.
Federalism in Burma will only succeed when people of Burma from
all ethnicity share the pain and gain. A political power without
morality is a sin. A free and fair society will maintain peace only
when people respect a dignity of a person. This is the campaign that
I am devoted to walk along with global friends who wish Burma
success in the 21st century.
“Federalism is one mechanism for reconciling as far as possible. The
autonomy of diverse regions within a nation with a sufficient degree
of national and governmental unity,” Christopher D. Gilbert asserts
in his book Australian and Canadian Federalism. He added that,
“Perhaps the more diverse are the regions comprising a federal
nation, the looser and more de-centralized that nation’s federalism
needs to be.”
The faith of over 50 million people in Burma is on President U
Thein Sein’s hand. He has an opportunity to liberate them as once
for all or he lives with guilt of political coward if he lacks of courage
to restore a united Burma under his own principle of “clean
government, fair government, just government” as he claimed in his
opening speech in March. Federalism is not a treat to the
sovereignty of Burma/Myanmar. It is strength of the nation that
competes to the world new social, economy and political changes in
the 21st century.