Historical Background
Myanmar is a country of diversity in terms of ethnicities, languages, and religions. There are an estimated 135 indigenous ethnic groups, or more officially organized by the government. The Burmans are the majority population in the country. Other ethnicities include Kachin, Kayah, Karen, Chin, Mon, Rakhine, Shan, and so on. In terms of geography, Myanmar is divided into seven states, seven regions, and one union territory (Nay Pyi Taw). Most of the population practices Buddhism, and the rest are Christians, Muslims, Hindus, and so on.
Myanmar has also had a long civil war lasting over 70 years. The conflicts between the Myanmar military (Tatmadaw) and the ethnic armed organizations had been intense as the Tatmadaw broke the promise of the Panlong Agreement. On February 12, 1947, at Panglong, General Aung San and other leaders from Chin, Shan, and Kachin signed an agreement to form federalism. In history, Myanmar has had a 1962 Burmese coup d’état and an 8888 uprising. And now, the 2021 Myanmar coup d’état is still ongoing. Many Myanmar scholars or politicians discussed Federalism as a key to the progress of Myanmar’s democracy in terms of diversities. Therefore, in this blog, I will raise my perspectives about federalism in terms of conflict resolution in addressing democracy in Myanmar.
As Myanmar is a diverse country, I do not think federalism can bring absolute peace to the country. However, federalism could be the best strategy to bring unity among diversities. In speaking of federalism aligned with Myanmar’s democracy, a mixture of territorial federalism and ethnic federalism would be appropriate, as Myanmar is geographically and ethnically complex.
Territorial Federalism
According to geography, most majority groups (Burmans) live in the dry zone of the country (middle part), and other indigenous groups live in hilly regions. In territorial federalism, the provinces should be named and recognized, and the local government should control the territory, holding important powers such as self-determination, resource sharing, and so on. There must also be the availability of natural resources. Resource distribution could be a challenge because some territories are richer than others. And it could also be a threat to secession when territories do not have adequate natural resources or capacity. Therefore, the geolocation of the territory must consider the status of infrastructure development, including transportation, utilities, communication, healthcare, education, and more. The power must be exercised over a given geographic region by the federal government, which includes the executive, legislative, and judicial systems. Within the territory, there is no special right for any ethnicity or community, and principles of equality must be considered.
Within territorial federalism, each state must have a degree of autonomy and decision-making authority so that individual states or regions within a federal system could have the right to govern their own internal affairs without any external interference.
Ethnical Federalism
Myanmar has 135 ethnic groups or more. Therefore, the union government (center) should accept the form of ethnical federalism where territory is replaced by the all-inclusive peaceful coexistence of a multicultural society, where each ethnic group is completely represented in the federal state. This is based on the recognition of the dominant ethnic community and the detailed understanding of minorities. Each province must be named in terms of their ethnicities. And there is also the availability of customary practices within the dominant ethnic community and their acceptability by other minorities. In terms of natural resource sharing, natural resources must be shared with other ethnic communities, both within and beyond the region. In Myanmar, Burmans are the majority ethnic group, and burmanization has influenced the country. As a result, many scholars have discussed that the formation of a Burman state might be the solution to reduce the burmanization within the country. However, this also brings into question which states should be considered Burman states or how territories can be divided, as Burmans live in almost every region of the country.
Within ethnical federalism, each ethnic group must have the rights of the people of a state to govern themselves to a certain extent and make decisions on internal matters politically, economically, socially, and culturally.
Conclusion
For Myanmar’s democracy, there are basically two pathways for the possibility of federalism: coming together or holding together. In holding together, the central government will play a stronger role. However, in coming together, the central power is decentralized, where all states or provinces are equal. In my opinion, coming together in federalism at least creates an opportunity to bring cooperation among different ethnic groups, to eliminate discrimination among divergent groups, or to protect the fundamental rights and interests of minority groups. And recognition of territories and ethnicities is the key to success in bringing peace within the country. In Myanmar, the military coup is ongoing, and the concept of federalism is still debating whether it could bring peaceful coexistence or not. And since the coup, the army revolutionary groups have emerged from different regions within the country, and the common goal is to remove the dictatorship (Tatmadaw) from the central government and to build a federal democratic country with unity.
References
Lynn, N. H. (2017, March 9). Panglong, then and now, and the promise of peace. Frontier Myanmar. https://www.frontiermyanmar.net/en/panglong-then-and-now-and-the-promise-of-peace/
Pritzker Legal Research Center. (n.d.). Pritzker Legal Research Center: Myanmar: Center for International Human Rights: Population, ethnic groups, and languages. Population, Ethnic Groups, and Languages – Myanmar: Center for International Human Rights – Pritzker Legal Research Center at Northwestern Pritzker School of Law. https://library.law.northwestern.edu/myanmar/population#:~:text=The%20government%20officially%20recognizes%20135,%2C%20Mon%2C%20Rakhine%20and%20Shan
Shanti Travel. (n.d.). Religion in Myanmar. Myanmar Travel Guide. https://www.shantitravel.com/en/myanmar-travel-guide/religion-in-myanmar
Thwin, M. A. A., Aung, M. H., & Steinberg, D. I. (2023, October 3). Climate of Myanmar. Encyclopædia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/place/Myanmar/Climate#ref52572
This blog explores federalism as a possible remedy for Myanmar’s diverse population and the enduring political issues. It looks at the pros and cons of territorial and ethnic federalism, highlighting how important it is to recognize territories and ethnic identities to promote democracy and unity. Because of the recent military coup, these issues are even more important to talk about, and the blog gives useful information about how the debate on federalism in Myanmar is changing. Dividing and allocating Myanmar into a federal unit is indeed a difficult task. There is a fine line between ethnic and regional concerns. It makes sense to use a mix of approaches, with some areas based on race and others on region. This is very important because if it’s only based on ethnicity, the majority Bamar group could win, which could cause problems with budgeting and independence. When discussing federalism in Myanmar, the idea of “double minorities” also needs some thought. In general, it’s an interesting and well-thought-out point of view.
You mentioned that: “In speaking of federalism aligned with Myanmar’s democracy, a mixture of territorial federalism and ethnic federalism would be appropriate, as Myanmar is geographically and ethnically complex.” However, the majority of ethnic groups in Myanmar are more supportive of ethnic-based federal construction. Therefore, even if federal units are to be formed based on territory and ethnicity, in practice, this method is less likely to be accepted by ethnic peoples. Ethnic-based federalism may bring satisfaction to an ethnic group in the short-term, but may create ethnic-based problems in the long-term such as minority-within-minority problems. For example, every ethnicity, no matter how small in terms of territory, can claim the right of founding as a federal unit in the future. In addition, the number of federal units that will increase will make it difficult to build relationships between the federal government and the federal units. Therefore, I think that only a regional federal system can establish a federal state that will be more sustainable in the long run.
I agree with your idea mentioned in the blogs: the spread of the Burmese population around the country could be a challenging matter to create a separate state or region. The reason is that it could unintentionally lead to taking most of the recent places: Yangon, Mandalay, Sagging, Magway, Bago, Ayeyarwady, and Tanintharyi. Another fact to point out is if ethnic federalism is implemented, some minority groups could encounter a lack of representation in the designated areas. For example, some Chin ethnic living around the Rakhine division (which may be a border area) could not be difficult to represent their right as they are minority living in the Rakhine area. The main point is how Burmese people understand the accent of Federalism. The prolonged military rule somehow conceived them by the propaganda portraying the EROs as destructive forces aimed to break the so-called union. Their readiness to accept the ideology of federalism: not dividing the union, collecting the union to reach a common future, should be accessed first among the Burmese. In fact, the Burmese people have proved their standpoint by fighting along with EROs against the junta. Another to consider is that, for the time being, all the democratic forces have a common enemy: the junta. However, the scenario foresight after the revolution or, for instance, the political movement like SAC’s sham election, the democratic forces should be prepared to encounter. Will all these forces still unite and share interests? Even if it is so far from now, the precautionary plan or agreement on the ground should be implemented. As Myanmar is a multi-ethnic country, it is required to think about what sort of power-sharing and interests could be relevant for all. In my understanding, this moment is the right time to emerge a holistic perspective from the myriad of difficulties.
Thank you for interesting post. It is true that Myanmar politics become more complex. In my perspective, federal democracy seems to be a dream and military use it as a soft power in order to attract foreign funds and manipulate in role play to uphold the outburst of ethnics repelling. There are several peace talks and federal conference, but the agreement, promises are never kept which rising doubt for foreign funds and international supports to withdraw from the process and lost trust in process from some ethnic groups. By the way, it is a good read!