comments on Ethnicity and Federalis

[suantak@xxxxxx]

Subject: comments on Ethnicity and Federalism

Comments on "Ethnicity and Federalism: A
Case for Burma"


Finally somebody studies and analyzes
federalism, and especially it is very
uplifting because the authors are Karen.
Not only they are Karen, they came from
the Toungoo area, where there is a Karen
majority in proper Burma. The main
cause of the Karen rebellion was the
refusal of Karen independence or the
refusal to place all Karen areas in one
administration unit. The demand to
demarcated the whole Delta area as Karen
area or state had been too overbearing
because the Karen are in the minority in
the Delta but there are areas where the
Karen are in the majority, such as the
Myaungmya, Nyaunglebin, and Taoungoo
areas.

It is difficult to figure out from their
article, what Naw May Oo and Saw Kapi
suggest to do with the Karen populated
areas (Where Karen are in the majority
in population) it will be the most
important for consideration the affairs
of these people in the future federal
set up if there is going to be one. Not
only the Karen there are other distinct
ethnic groups such as the Naga who are
group into the proper Burma. Similarly
there are large population groups of
Shan in the Mogaung, Mohaung, Monyein
areas. These were the ones who sagged
the Burmese capital and ruled the Burman
at one time in Burmese history. There
are also a large Chin population in the
Yaw areas between Arakan and the
Irrawaddy. Will all these people have
access to the benefit of federalism?

The non-Burman population are crying for
federalism and it surely is the best
form of political model for Burma, but
if it is again modeled like the 1947
constitution there would be the same
mess. Naw May Oo and Saw Kapi should not
only study what is federalism but also
how it can be applied to suite the
fragmented Karen people. There are more
Karen outside of the present Karen State
than in the state.   Just look at the
NCUB constitution draft it will wake up
any one who believes in a prosperous
Union. Such a constitution is in no way
bring national unity.  Before armed
resistance groups go
underground again in the new federal
union, all avenues have to be
studied even if federalism is introduced
to Burma in a democratic Union of Burma.
It could be a fake one, the same as the
1947 Federal Constitution.

In the meantime it seems paramount to
figure out what is going on in the
brains of the Burmese military leaders,
who leads the country towards the stone
age. Why are these people Ne Win, Khin
Nyunt, Than Swe, Tin Oo, etc are
destroying the country? Are they
Myanmar, and not really Burman?

Vum Son
-----Original Message-----
<Rangoonp@xxxxxxx>
To: burmanet-l@xxxxxxxxxxx
<burmanet-l@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Friday, August 06, 1999 11:52 PM
Subject: SPECIAL ARTICLE: Article on
Federalism:


>Article on Federalism:
>
>5 August 1999
>
>Dear All:
>
>The attached article appeared in KNL
newsletter. The writers are said to
>be
>brother and sister. The lady is the
President of the KNL.
>
>Hope this article can start some
fruitful discussion among us.
>
>MSMD, Ks.
>
>
>
>FEATURE
>Ethnicity and Federalism: A Case for
Burma
>by
>Saw Kapi and Naw May Oo
>Burma, one of the many multi-ethnic
countries of the Third World, is
>faced
>with two fundamental political problems
that have kept her away from
>lasting
>peace and prosperity. The first one is
the lacking of democratic
>governance
>in the country. The second and more
deeply-rooted one is half-a-century
>long
>civil guerrilla war between diverse
ethnic armed resistance groups and
>the
>central government. This paper will
briefly discuss the issue of
>ethnicity
>and fundamental need for a genuine
national reconciliation in our
>country.
>One very essential question Burma needs
to answer is quite simple: what
>kind
>of system is needed to be in place in
order to accommodate ethnic
>diversity
>and maintain unity and freedom at the
same time?
>An impartial understanding of Burma's
ethnic politics is essential for
>those
>of us who are striving for the
country's successful transition to a
>peaceful
>and democratic society. As such we all
would agree that a great extent
>of
>political sensitivity is required in
order to make impartial analysis
>and
>understand the political problems of
Burma. Being merely sympathetic to
>the
>suffering of ethnic people under the
current military regime is by no
>means
>enough. While the ethnic resistance
movements may be viewed by some as
>an
>unrestrained monster that has often
devastated many promising plans for
>change, built on sophisticated economic
models, the ethnic people
>themselves
>consider their movements paramount
important for their very own
>survival. We
>will be so wrong to assume that the
reality of ethnic and their cultural
>diversities would in due course be
assimilated or eliminated in the
>process of
>developmental change. As Ralph R.
Premdas points out:
>"The evidence against this de-emphasis
of the ethno-cultural factor by
>the
>different ideologies is devastating.
>From Lebanon in the Middle East to
>Guyana on the South American continent,
from Northern Ireland to
>
>Azerbaijan in
>Europe to Quebec in North America, from
the Sudan and South Africa to
>Sri
>Lanka and Malaysia, the assertion of
the ethnic factor has made shambles
>of
>development objectives and social peace
everywhere, on all continents,
>in both
>underdeveloped and industrialized
societies."
>Therefore, any strategy for
development, both in politics and
economic,
>regardless of ideological foundation it
is based on, must acknowledge
>and
>incorporate the reality of cultural
pluralism and ethnic diversity in
>the
>country. In light of this reality,
federalism has become a very
>important
>state organization system that can make
the best possible accommodation
>and
>incorporation of ethnic diversity into
the country's political
>development.
>In the meantime, experience shows that
the only federations which have
>failed
>are those which had socialist or
communist state systems. Thus, what
>Burma
>need is to have democratic principles
as the basis foundation of
>political
>system, and federalism as the basic
foundation of state organization.
>To briefly look at the origin of the
word federalism, it is found that
>the
>word came into English via French from
Latin. Foederatus means "bound by
>treaty" deriving from foedus: treaty
and fidere: to trust."1 The
>earliest
>recorded use of the word is said to be
found in 17th century puritans, a
>religious community who spoke of
"federal theology" meaning a covenant
>between
>God and human beings. But by early 18th
century, the word had evolved to
>include agreements between separate
political communities of a
>heterogeneous people.
>Throughout history, we can see that
different countries in the world
>have
>employed federalism at various levels
in terms of agreement between
>states,
>and power relationship between states
and central government. And each
>form
>of federalism has a different history
and socio-political diversity.
>India,
>for example, has employed a sort of
centralized federalism in which the
>federal government has significant
constitutional power, has been
>employed
>with a certain success, and it has also
maintained considerable level of
>democratic principles, freedom and
stability. The United States and
>Switzerland, although they are
different in many specific mechanisms,
>have a
>similar scheme of very decentralized
federalism. History has proved that
>different types of federal systems have
efficiently accommodated a
>number of
>multi-ethnic societies with different
social and political backgrounds,
>except
>for the currently defunct Yugoslav and
Russian forms of federalism which
>had
>been operated within a political system
of total rule by one party. So
>let us
>briefly look into the sustainability of
federalism for our country,
>Burma.
>First, federalism can facilitate the
demand of "self-determination"2
>made by
>ethnic nationalities. In other words,
federalism can reconcile the
>legitimate
>impulse of Burma to preserve her
territorial integrity and national
>unity,
>with the legitimate rights of ethnic
nationalities to preserve their
>culture,
>human dignity and political autonomy.
In this sense, federalism not only
>allows the existence of cultural
pluralism, but also gives the
>
>minorities to
>preserve and develop themselves
politically as well as economically.
>Moreover, federalism, depending on the
level of decentralization, can
>protect
>the affairs and decisions of ethnic
nationalities, in their organization
>and
>forms of representation, or in the
strategies they adopt to prevent
>resources
>from being exploited unilaterally by
the central government. In short,
>federalism encourages peaceful
coexistence of diverse ethnic
>nationalities
>with equality and freedom.
>We have seen in the history of Burma
that ambitious attempts made by
>successive Burman-dominated governments
and military regimes to unite
>the
>country by forcibly assimilating
smaller ethnic nationalities into the
>melting
>pot of Burman [or Burmese] have
painfully resulted in the half-a-century
>long
>civil war. Meanwhile, ethnic
nationalities have both repeatedly and
>collectively proposed to form a genuine
federal union in which both
>Burman and
>non-Burman ethnic nationalities can
peacefully co-exist as equal
>partners.3
>Of course, federalism must be developed
in response to the ancient
>question of
>how to unite different ethnic
nationalities together in order to
>effectively
>pursue objectives unobtainable
otherwise, but without submerging any of
>their
>own identities. Within the framework of
federalism, the new relationship
>between ethnic nationalities and the
central government will be created
>on the
>basis of recognition of their rights to
self-determination and of the
>legal,
>political, social, economic, and
cultural rights derived therefrom.
>Secondly, while the supremacy of the
national government over the
>federal
>units is recognized, in federalism the
degree of shared responsibility
>for,
>and power over, public policy is
clearly distinguished. Thus, federalism
>can
>incorporate the condition of
multi-ethnicity in any explication of
the
>development idea for the country as a
whole. It is important to note
>here
>that for a multi-ethnic country like
Burma, most federal units may be
>ethnically defined units. Looking at
the examples of other multi-ethnic
>states, we can clearly see that
"policies which win legitimacy and stand
>a
>chance of implementation must engage
and incorporate divergent communal
>claims."4 By maintaining clearly
distinguished power over public policy,
>it
>will be possible for each federal unit
of ethnic nationalities to
>undertake
>educational and development policies
within their own cultural spheres.
>Through education it will be possible
to ensure the use and development
>of
>ethnic national languages, while
recognizing their cultural heritage.
>For
>example, having control over
educational policies within their own
>states,
>each federal unit (or ethnic
nationality state) can develop school
>curriculums
>in their own language reflecting their
cultural essence and teach it at
>the
>state schools. It is important,
however, that this emphasis on ethnic
>national language and culture in each
federal unit or state should not
>overshadow or supercede the teaching of
the main national language, that
>is,
>Burmese; nor the study of, and fluency
in, one or more internationally
>used
>
>languages, e.g., English, French,
Chinese, etc., should be neglected.
>It is indeed imperative now that Burma,
a country that has been ripped
>by
>ethnic conflicts for more than fifty
years, adopts federalism as a
>pragmatic
>instrument to attain genuine unity
among the Burman majority and diverse
>ethnic nationalities. That is by no
mean to say that the relationship
>between
>the central government and ethnic
nationality states (federal units)
>will be
>smooth. The dual nature of federal
government will always create debates
>over
>policies that it pursues; however, such
debates are necessary as to
>check and
>balance the power exercised by the
central government, and are crucial
>in
>preventing armed conflicts between
states and central government.
>In conclusion, it must be stressed that
there can be no peace nor
>stability in
>a multi-ethnic country unless ethnic
problems are unequivocally
>addressed.
>The issues of democracy and human
rights can be addressed at the level
>of
>protection of the rights of the
individual citizen, but they must also
>be
>safeguarded by recognizing the rights
of ethnic nationalities. To this
>end,
>federalism, with its dualistic
character of sophisticated balance
>between
>central and state authorities, seems to
be the most suitable framework
>yet
>developed for structuring mutually
respected relations in the ethnically
>diverse society of Burma.
>This is a slightly revised version of
discussion paper presented by Naw
>May Oo
>at the 51st Annual Meeting of
Association for Asian Studies, March
>11-14,
>1999, in Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
>
>Notes:
>1 Stephen Woodard, ôThe Simple Guide to
the Federal Idea.ö From
>Ventotene,
>Federalism and Politics, The Ventotene
Papers of the Altiero Spinelli
>Institute for Federalist Studies,
Ventotene, 1995.
>2 The term, ôself-determination,ö is
oftentimes defined differently by
>different scholars. Here we chose to
use the ôsofterö notion of
>self-determination as presented by
Asbjorn Eide. The term,
>ôself-determination,ö should not be
seen here as an absolute term but
>more as
>ôintermediate optionö which allows
ethnic nationalities to have greater
>control over their own political,
social and economic destiny.
>3 Both the National Democratic Front
(NDF), an umbrella organization of
>ethnic
>resistance groups, and the Democratic
Alliance of Burma (DAB), a larger
>alliance organization of both Burman
and non-Burman democratic
>opposition
>forces, have clearly stated their
position on the ôestablishment of a
>genuine
>federal union of Burma based on
democracy, equality and
>self-determination.ö
>
>4 Ralph R. Premdas, ôEthnicity and
Development: The Case of Fiji,ö
>United
>Nations Research Institute for Social
Development discussion paper No.
>46,
>October 1993.
>
>