Civilians Can Rule Burma

(Questions on democracy and federalism on Burma’s Political Agenda)

By- Banya Hongsar

November 8, 2003, Bangkok--The State Peace and Development Council tolerate no single aspect towards civilian politicians and lawmakers in Burma for over fifteen years. The country is now still ruled by the military officials without popular constitution and parliament.

A question of democracy and federalism on Burma has raised to many activists whether democracy should restore first and the formation of federation is placed for the second round. To answer this critical question, Khun Marko Ban, President of United Nationalities League for Democracy (Liberated Areas) timely published his collected articles, documents and related historical accords on Burma.

Military authority rules Burma for over half century. Non-Burman nationalities rejected it soon after the country wad freed from British colony in 1948. A short live parliamentary government only survived for less than ten years. The military led socialist government ruled Burma for 26 years and the current ruling regime controls the State power for over 15 years until today. Democratic force toppled military back-up socialist government in 1988 led by students in the capital but non-Burman nationalities political forced strongly against the military since 1950s.

In the notion of many new generations of Burmese people who missed an opportunity to study the true political history of Burma underestimate the legitimacy of non-Burman nationalities. They, not all but in minority mocked the call of non-Burman nationalities for ‘formation of federation’ in Burma. However, non-Burman great thinkers have challenged to the notion of democracy is a first political agenda and the later arrangements should come next.

"While (Tha Khin) Kodaw Hmaing and Aung San opted for a "non-racial, non-religious secular approach", Tun Ok and Ba Sein’s political convictions were centred on ethnicity and religion, namely the Myanmar ethnicity and the religion of Buddhism. Moreover, while the former pair advocated democracy and a Federal Union, Ba Sein and Tun Ok were in "favour of a totalitarian form of national polity," and declared that "totalitarianism would benefit Burma", Dr. Lian H Sakong, General Secretary of United Nationalities League for Democracy (Liberated Areas) challenged to the notion of ‘democracy is the first agenda" in Burma.

Except the Communist party and a few urban politicians against the ruling military authority in 1950-70, Burman nationality ignored the military until 1988. However, non-Burman nationalities both home and in common borderland have campaigned to topple the military rules since 1960s.

According to Khun Marko Ban, General Ne Win detained 51 politicians and lawmakers including non-Burman leaders in March 1962. It is fair to say that non-Burman politicians have paid similar price under Ne Win dictatorship.

On 24 February 1962, A seminar of Ethnic Nationalities and Principle of Federalism was held at Broadcasting Hall at Pyi Road in Rangoon. Prime Minister U Nu was chair for the seminar. President of AFPFL (Permanent faction), U Ba Swe rejected to form a Burman State proposed by non-Burman leaders. Furthermore, Widhura Tha Khin Chit Maung, President of United Nationalities Union Front (pa-ma-nya-ta), also rejected a proposal formation of a Burman State and instead he proposed for formation of Republic Socialist of Union of Burma. Non-Burman leaders who still alive well remembered the trick of Burman nationalist politicians and they taught new generation for not making new mistake.

"During the 1988 democracy uprising, while Aung Gyi and other leaders rejected ethnic nationalities demands for self-determination and federalism, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, like her father, met with non-Myanmar ethnic leaders, and a meeting at the UNLD office, on 15 July 1989, they agreed to work together for "democracy and to resolve the ethnic issues". Dr Sakong wrote on his recent paper that released to online by Kaowao Newsgroup.
Thus, the position of Aung San Suu Kyi and ethnic nationalities was that the questions of "democracy and the ethnic issues" — which are inseparably linked with the "constitutional problems" — must be addressed together in order for democracy to be restored. They cannot be separated, for they hold the same value like the two sides of the same coin, Dr Sakong recalled to notion of democracy and federalism in Burma.

Successive military rulers led by Burman who dominated the central power and ethnic states are created only for symbolically. Non-Burman ethnic leaders are no longer able to tolerate for the military dominated politics. Generation of 1988s only learned the principle of ethnic politics when they have reached to Thai-Burma border areas to the umbrella of Karen, Mon, Karenni and other non-Burman ethnic military headquarters.
"I thought that they (ethnic solders) are like uncivilized men when I was in Rangoon but when I have seen them they are quite disciplined," a former student leader, Ko Soe Myint, Editor In Chief of Mizzima News said on recent seminar in India. In fact, urban based students and politicians were grew up under Ne Win regime. The State media shown those ethnic troops are similar to robbery gangs who have no principle in social and political context.

Burmese politics like it or not has turned to a new face under regional and international political climate, yet it has reached to a common ground for a solution. The claims of firstly to restore democracy and secondly to arrange federal state are in fact a major challenge to power brokers in all sides. Obviously, none person wanted to separate so call Burma into 135 states or territories. Anti- military organizations have united into three fronts in recent political accords. The first accord was Bo Aung Kyaw Conference in 1990, the second was the Mae Tha Raw Hta Seminar in 1997 and the last event was Thu Mao Kalo event in 1998. Civilian political leaders have found common grounds from these occasions.

It is time to review the culture of factionalism in Burmese politics while there are many Burman political organizations both home and abroad. To be fair, factionalism politic is also influenced to ethnic organizations regardless national interests. For Example, the Mon National Democratic Front and New Mon State Party played key leading in modern Mon political stages. However, the NMSP itself still faced a dilemma of factionalism politics over cease-fire agreement in 1995.

According to Mr M.K Ban, the weakness of 1947 and 1974 constitutions drawn by Burman majority push the nation into constitutional crisis.
Is there a common ground to be discussed with the ruling military, State Peace and Development Council? But it is a long way to find whether the ruling State Peace and Development Council agrees the civilians rule the country. Otherwise, all civilians are obligated to fight for their civil rights.

==================End================