Sai Wansai — While most are consumed by the recent unsuccessful National League for Democracy (NLD)-led constitutional amendment going on within the parliament, which could be portrayed as a power struggle between the NLD-led regime and the Burma army, Bamar military or Tatmadaw, the role and concern of the third party namely, the ethnic nationalities made up of ethnic political parties (EPPs) and ethnic armed organizations (EAOs), was conveniently been overlooked or sidelined.

It is all the more ludicrous as the non-Bamar ethnic nationalities occupy some 70% of the landmass of the country and have a population of 40% according to conservative estimate. In addition, some 100,000  EAOs are pitted against the government’s Burma army or Tatmadaw troops of 300,000 to 350,000 in the ongoing civil or ethnic conflict war. Moreover, the EPPs which were being suppressed during the military rule from 1962 to 2011 are now making their voice of reinstating their rights of self-determination heard in media and parliamentary space.

The NLD main concern is to dilute the military power and understandably its amendment clauses were only aimed to achieve this end, with no mention to strengthen the making of federal union in its recent constitutional amendment deliberations within the parliament, to the dismay of the EPPs.

On March 12, Shan Nationalities League for Democracy (SNLD) Joint-Secretary Sai Leik in a recent interview regarding the NLD’s 114 constitutional amendment proposal points with The Voice Weekly Journal said: “They (NLD) have changed 114 points and we (SNLD) have changed some paragraphs that they dared not touch. Since they didn’t give their opinion, the paragraphs were left untouched in original forms. In this case it meant that other democratic parties’ change proposals were not endorsed. This can be taken if the proposals are not the same as the NLD they won’t support them and won’t work with them (other parties).”

“That’s why if we talk about amendment, the NLD 114 arranged points and the proposed result (stemming from majority decision of 45-person constitutional amendment joint-committee made up of several parties of which NLD has the majority) was also the same (which was tabled in the parliament for debate and later voting). I see that the NLD is too greedy and very weak in cooperation, with the ethnic parties,” he added sarcastically.

But the conflict in Burma isn’t just the two Bamar stakeholders’ power struggle, as the ongoing civil war in form of ethnic conflict is the main obstacle in achieving reconciliation and political settlement, without which there will be no peace and development in the country, much less the projected democratic federal union professed by all stakeholders to be their main goal.

Thus, the present game plan involving only the two Bamar decision-makers, NLD and Tatmadaw, is not going to work and totally unrealistic, as the third party ethnic nationalities place has to be determined in a new game plan, if earnest peaceful political settlement for the whole country is to be pursued.

For the time being, the two Bamar players seem to be convinced that the ethnic nationalities are unimportant minor players and have to be satisfied with subordinate role, accepting their fate as determined by  any of the Bamar player for them.

But let us look at first the existing two games that we are now in play.

NCA-based peace negotiation process

The NCA was signed on 15 October 2015 under the Union Solidarity and Development Party government led by Thein Sein.  The incoming NLD government took over the NCA-based peace process but haven’t been able to make progress much over the past years, which has been halted for more than a year without much hope to continue and make a difference it in a sensible way.

As it is the NCA remains deeply problematic with the Karen National Union (KNU) and Restoration Council of Shan State (RCSS) having armed clashes with the Tatmadaw on and off.

Tatmadaw road-building into KNU controlled territories and accusation of the Tatmadaw against RCSS for encroaching in territories that it is not entitled, even though there has never been area demarcation between the two, have caused the on and off armed conflicts.

Besides, both the KNU and RCSS are also of the opinion that the Ceasefire Joint Monitoring Committee (JMC) is dominated by the Tatmadaw and so do the NCA-based peace process by the NLD government, which actually is supposed to be jointly owned agreement.

In process, the Tatmadaw blocked the RCSS convening Shan national political dialogue repeatedly and even prohibited the RCSS boss Sao Yawd Serk travel to Naypyitaw by land route from Thai border in December last year, which almost derailed the Joint Implementation Coordinating Meeting (JICM), the highest organ in NCA-based peace process.

As for the KNU, the Tatmadaw road-building into KNU areas become a constant friction, which pushed the KNU to withdraw from the peace process since more than a year ago.

The leading NCA signatory groups – the KNU, RCSS and New Mon State Party (NMSP) – are demanding reorganization of the JMC, which is presently dominated by the military, to make it more fair to the EAOs. Their main demands include greater international participation in ceasefire monitoring and for the government to demonstrate a serious commitment to political dialogue and implementation of federalism.

The government, military and the EAOs are now in the process of trying to renew the peace process to be on official-footing again, but no one knows if this will work out given the unruly nature of the Tatmadaw to keep the war flames on, for whatever reason it may have in store.

And on top of it, without all-inclusiveness participation of all EAOs, the peace process will not be able to achieve anything sizable or comprehensive solution to the conflict. In this respect, the Tatmadaw has to tone down its annihilation objective on Arakan Army (AA) and The Three Brotherhood Alliance, made up of AA, Ta’ang National Liberation Army (TNLA) and Myanmar National Democratic Alliance Army (MNDAA), if it really is for conflict resolution.

But so far, the Tatmadaw offensives on AA and the TNLA are ongoing and the proposed bilateral ceasefire with the National Alliance – Burma (NA-B), a combination of The Three Brotherhood Alliance and Kachin Independence Army (KIA),  is nowhere in sight. These means, the KIA, MNDAA, TNLA and AA will not be included in the peace process anytime soon.

And with the uncertainty of NCA-based peace process, even though some concessions were said to be worked out, such as agreeing to the Shan and Arakan public consultation or political dialogue meetings among their respective people, previously blocked by the Tatmadaw; and allowing the ethnic states to draw their own state constitutions; the all-inclusive approach of all EAOs is still a long way off.

This brings us to the other peace process approach of amending the existing military-drafted constitution within the parliament so that a more democratic venue be opened and political grievances of the ethnic nationalities could be eventually resolved.

Parliamentary constitutional amendment approach

NLD hasn’t spelled out on how its parliamentary constitutional amendment procedure will fit into the NCA-based “Union Accord” outcomes. Theoretically, the Union Accord results obtained from the 21st Century Panglong – Union Peace Conference will be submitted to the parliament for approval and later integrated as constitutional amendments, before holding another nationwide elections according to the amended constitution.

However, as stated above, the NLD proposed amendment points of 114 won’t be endorsed as it has no way to overcome the 75% vote ceiling. Thus, it could be said that the NLD is only trying to show that it is fulfilling its election campaign promises and perhaps portraying that the Tatmadaw is to be blamed for blocking the amendment.

NLD, Tatmadaw and ethnic nationalities political positions

The NLD said that it is for federal union but its practical actions have been only for decentralization and nothing more, as pinpointed by Sai Leik. He said that the NLD doesn’t have policy paper on federal union also.

The Tatmadaw position is to protect the 2008 Constitution at all cost, as it wants to maintain its upper-hand position in political arena, having the privilege of being allotted 25% MP seats and administer the home, defense and border affairs ministries.

Thus, regarding federalism the NLD and Tatmadaw don’t differ much in wanting to preserve Bamar supremacy and unitary system of governance, perhaps with minimum power devolution or some federal trappings.

Moreover, SNLD spokesman Sai Leik complained: “If you look at it, the NLD has no exact   transparent policy on NCA-based peace negotiation approach as it maintained that the NCA is led by the EAOs. It has to have a policy on peace process.”

“The NLD said that it has federal policy but we have never seen its leadership directive made public. That’s why when there is political negotiation its inability to make their believed values and basic principles known to the public lead to piecemeal solutions and uncertainty. At the moment, NCA cannot be seen as a reliable approach,” added Sai Leik.

In contrast, the ethnic nationalities bloc of EPPs and EAOs mostly are for ethnic-territorial-based federalism, with strong state power and less power to union or federal government. As examples we could look at the twelve EAOs recent working paper on what kind of federalism they envisaged. Equally, we could also observe the SNLD position on the same issue.

Twelve EAOs federal principles

The twelve EAOs approved working document of  28-29 February 2020 in Chiang Mai has 13 pages, excluding the 6-page annexure on  security and defense.

In its political aims and guiding principles, the twelve EAOs mentioned civilian supremacy and  multi-party democracy system that guarantee basic civilian human rights, apart from democracy, building a federal union with states that have national equality and rights of self-determination.

The working document stated the ethnic nationalities historical references as who have taken part in the forming of the Union based on 1947 Panglong Agreement and Panglong Promises; 14-point  preliminary preparation directive of Anti Fascist Freedom League (AFPFL) 1947; the 7 directives of General Aung San 1947; and Taunggyi principles (federal amendment proposal 1961); entitled for welfare of their own people, territories with rights of self-determination, including all issues that concerned the Union.

In its guiding principles the working document said it is a union of ethnic nationalities who are different from each other. Therefore, the future federal union shall be implemented accordingly as prescribed regarding sovereignty,  union formation and legislation.

Regarding sovereignty it belongs to the Union Member States and to the entire ethnic population in that State and throughout the Union. The three pillars: legislation, administration and judiciary to function as checks and balances in upholding the sovereignty.

Concerning the formation of the Union, the working document writes:

• The Federal Union is composed of states that are of equal political standing and have full autonomy.
• The Member States of the Federal Union are made up of national states and geographical states based on race.
• Ethnic states are formed on the basis of existing national states, and seven existing geographical regions are reorganized into geographical states (from 3 to 5 states). In the reorganization of the seven regions from 3 to 5 states one appropriate state can be designated as Bamar State, if desired.
• Besides the existing Self-Administered Division and Zones, indigenous ethnic minorities, depending on their population, can designate different type of administrations to protect their identities by respective state.
• If the Union Territory is required, it shall be formed only with the consent of the people of the respective States.

Regarding the Union level parliamentary legislative sector formation it writes:

At Union level there will be two houses: representatives elected by constituency by the public for Pyithu Hluttaw (Lower House) and equal representatives elected by the ethnic states for Amyotha Hluttaw or National Assembly (Upper House).

• In the enactment of the Union Law, the majority of the National Assembly and the Pyithu Hluttaw shall sign and pass the bill as the law.
• In the Union Law, two Hluttaws shall vote separately. There shall be no joint vote of the two houses.
• The 2 parliaments shall have the same legislative power. (Mutual Veto)

SNLD policy

The SNLD policy in building a federal union is, more or less, on the same wavelength with the twelve EAOs’ working document.

In its 33-point deliberation delivered in the parliamentary debate prior to the voting of NLD-led constitutional amendment recently was read out by the SNLD MP Sai Ba Thein from Lan Khur constituency.

In its introduction of Union Vision it writes: “Practicing democracy with full rights of self-determination in a federal democratic union, where all peoples and citizens of the union are based on equality, justification, with mutual respect, fraternity friendship and unity, in building a peaceful co-existence, prosperous, federal democratic union.”

Regarding its Union Value, the paper pinpoints:

• Rights of democracy and human rights
• Equality and rights of self-determination
• Collective leadership
• Diversity (Unity in Diversity)
• Protection of minorities

Concerning sovereignty, union formation and union legislation the SNLD positions are identical to those of the twelve EAOs working document agreed on  28-29 February 2020.

SNLD is a leading member of the United Nationalities Alliance which has 15 political parties as members and it could be more or less understood as a common political outlook,  where the formation of the federal union is concerned.

Analysis

To sum up, the EAOs and EPPs are for an eight-state resolution, although this does not mean the existing all the 7 divisions/regions will become a Bamar State. It is more likely, that a certain portion of the areas where the majority of the Bamar resides will become Bamar State, while the others will be nationalities states, where certain ethnic mixture of population exist. For example, Tanintharyi where at least, Dawei, Karen and Mon mingled together which could become an ethnic state, where the population could determine their own destiny the way they see fit. The same goes for the Irrawaddy and Sagaing Divisions or Regions where multi-ethnic groups reside together in the areas. Thus, although it is termed as eight-state resolution, it would definitely be more than eight ethnic states.

In addition to the ethnic nationalities’ view of ethnic-territorial-based federal union, they also want two parliamentary houses of Pyithu Hluttaw (Lower House) and Amyotha Hluttaw or Nationalities Assembly (Upper House) to balance the political power usurped by one majority ethnic group, so that they won’t be handicapped in the national political arena.

The NLD deliberations within the parliament to dilute the military representation of 25% allotted seats aren’t successful and the NCA-based peace process is also unable to officially restart, due to the heavy-handedness of the Tatmadaw to exclude some EAOs and also launching of offensives against them, such as the AA and the Three Brotherhood Alliance in northern Shan State.

Thus, the failed constitutional amendment and also the inability to move forward with the NCA-based peace process failures are all on the lap of the Tatmadaw, so to speak.

If this is the case, in order to move forward with the democratization and peace process, the Tatmadaw needs to make accommodation and not blocking the reconciliation. But first the two Bamar major players, the NLD and Tatmadaw, must also accept the fact that only a tripartite dialogue solution, which the ethnic nationalities have to be a part,  is the only way to go.

Because of this only if the idea to abandon sidelining of the ethnic nationalities could be instilled  the civil war might end, eventually paving the way for political settlement and perhaps we will see the light at the end of the tunnel. Otherwise, we will be forced to wait for the outcome from the two Bamar stakeholders’ power struggle as a  way to resolve the ethnic conflict, which is neither holistic, all-embracing nor a lasting solution. And if the civil war is to go on without even a chance to air our multitude differences of aspirations in state-building, we all will be further condemned to eternal conflict and won’t be able to get out of the vicious circle of violence.