Not my title, but an admonition from an NLD supporter. I take this as my starting point, because I think that statements like this are likely to inflame anger among ethnic groups in Burma, as has the NLD ‘move’. There has been a certain amount of discussion regarding the NLD’s Union Day offer of discussions with the SPDC, and as we approach the deadline for acceptance, a view on the matter is warranted.

The statement of the title comes from an article prepared by the Civil Society for Burma (1). The article itself has some very good points to make regarding the NLD offer. But it comes unstuck immediately by trampling in an unceremonious manner on the aspirations of the ethnic groups. Shan leaders have been asserting their desire for political autonomy since 1947 and have faced the same response over and over again. Is this how democratic debate is conducted in Burma? Is this the process of debate that will become the standard for political life in Burma once the SPDC have been removed and democracy restored? If so, then the writers and speakers of such statements need a lesson in constitutional law and democracy right now!

Democracy is a form of government of the people, by the people and for the people; in other words, it covers all those people within an administrative area. Its leaders are chosen from the people, and the role of government is to act in accordance with the wishes of the people.

Of course, in practice, those elected to any parliament will have disagreements and debates about what is the best course of action to take in any circumstances. Democracies face this by openly debating amongst themselves and forming a majority consensus view, with mutual respect for each other. Democracy favours the view of the majority. Of course, a government may be faced with deciding on a course of action that is not popular but deemed right for the state – decisions to go to war by western countries in recent years have not been overly popular, raising taxes in any country is rarely popular.

One thing that the political debate over the constitution of Burma must face is the form of government that will be acceptable to all of the people – or as large a proportion of the people as possible. If we estimate that a third of Burma’s population is not Bamar(2), then the voices and aspirations of the ethic groups must be heard and listened to if Burma is to become a true exponent of democracy.

What we are faced with today is a situation where the SPDC does not wish to establish a democracy. The current farce of the National Convention is not a process of drawing up a constitution. It is a process of drawing out the discussions interminably until everyone is so fed up that a new generation will have to pick up the strands and start all over again. A constitution does not need to be such a lengthy process or a lengthy document – the US constitution is only 7,000 words long and was written over two conventions held in September 1786 and May 1787. The UK doesn’t have a formal written constitution – it has a series of documents and precedence that put together with high court rulings define the constitution – it evolved over centuries of use and attempts to improve it. Yet nowadays, the US and UK are seen as standard models of democratic government.
It has been argued that Asia does not need western democracy models. My question is; why not? The western democracy model is one that gives power to the majority, while holding that all people within the country are protected under law from discrimination. There is nothing western or un-Asian about that. The proponents of a different Asian style of democracy are usually those who don’t want democracy at all – they want to disguise their tyranny and keep power to a self-appointed minority, whether it is a corrupt civilian government or a military junta.

To return to Shan Sate and Burma (a wish, a wish,…) if democracy is to be implemented, then the pro-democracy organisations should act as they preach – in a democratic manner. If the SPDC is to be given an option to decide on, then it should be given a concerned and united coalition of pro-democracy organisations. All that I see at present is that one faction blames another, one group sides with the SPDC, another agrees a ceasefire and joins the SPDC reign of terror. If the NLD wish to participate in a coalition government, and speak with one voice, then the coalition must demonstrate to all parties that it speaks with one voice for all groups in Burma. At present the only united party is the SPDC. I certainly haven’t heard of the NLD or PDP, ABSDF, NCUB, the NCGUB (the list goes on) talking to the ethnic groups of the ANC, ARNO, KNU, KNO, ENC, CNF, SNLD, RCSS, ISG – how many have I missed? And many of these groups have links to expatriate supporter organisations around the world. For sure they have different views on the constitution and on the outcome of any discussions that they wish for. A coalition will only be a true coalition if it includes all or as many as possible voices.

The article I referred to in my opening paragraph contained many good points regarding the analysis of the NLD offer to the SPDC. However, it badly missed the mark regarding the ‘ethnic minorities’. The ethnic groups of Burma will play a major role in the future of Burma; in whatever form it takes. The views and aspirations of the ethnic groups are not to be dismissed. If the NLD wants the trust of the Shan people or any other ethnic groups, they will have to earn that trust by their actions and by their ability and skill in communication with the leaders of the ethnic groups. Have I missed the part where this trust has become implicit in their actions and speeches?

The ethnic leaders will not “step away from their ethnic politics and instead work for national freedom to make the movement successful”. Instead, it is vital for the NLD and other ‘mainstream’ politic groups who have to step away from their self-centred approach to change in Burma. They need to talk to the ethnic groups and the ethnic leaders. They need to talk to the people and work towards a true coalition. Only the strength of a true coalition will face the SPDC from a position of power; an overwhelming power that the SPDC will have to face and move aside as the people regain their freedom and take their future into their own hands. The ethnic leaders will continue to work for what their people want – self-determination, freedom, democracy and independence.
................................................................

Further reading
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/encyclopedia/entry/Constituus
http://www.constitution.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution
http://www.oefre.unibe.ch/law/icl/
http://www.staff.amu.edu.pl/~wroblew/en_index.php
http://www.house.gov/house/Educate.shtml

References:
1. The Breaking of the Dead End
Htun Aung Gyaw, President, Civil Society For Burma.

2. http://www.nationbynation.com/Burma/Population.html
Sixty-Eight percent of the population of Burma are Burman. The Shan make up 9% of the population; The Karen 7%, the Rakhine 4%, Chinese make up 3%, the Mon 2%, Indian 2%, and other 5%.

Quotes to reflect on:

A coalition government, or coalition cabinet, is a cabinet in parliamentary government in which several parties cooperate. The usual reason for this arrangement is that no party on its own has a majority in the parliament. In times of crisis such as a war or a major economic or political crisis parties may form an all-party National Unity Government or Grand Coalition.
Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_government

"Hatred does not cease by hatred at any time, hatred only ceases by love, this is an old rule."
The Dhammapada, book 1, verse 3

For Burma, people might be over-conscious of the starkness of ethnic differences at this given moment in their struggle against oppressive military rule, but these perceptions can be changed over time when military rule is withdrawn. There can be new divisions within each ethnic divide in the future, under competitive political forces. For example, if there is an election in Chin state, there will be at least two parties competing and a minority organization or party might appear. It’s important for democracies to have an effective mechanism to deal with not only current divisions, but also to make hidden divisions come to the surface and be able to deal with them through the political process without resorting to violence. Democracy at its best is a system that enables different groups to contest and compete legally for power without using violence.
Chao Tzang Yawngwhe,
The Role of State Constitutions in Protecting Minority Rights under Federalism:
Dialogues in Support of a Democratic Transition in Burma