Email This Story :
An alliance comprised of seven ethnic minority affiliated political parties called on Burma’s major parties to refrain from running in ethnic areas during the 2015 general elections.
The Ethnic Nationalities Federation (ENF) said the move would allow for self-determination in the country’s ethnic regions and promote federalism.
The announcement was made during the federation’s meeting in Naypyidaw last weekend.
“We have been calling for federalism,” said ENF spokesperson Saw Than Myint of the Shan Nationalities Democratic Party.
“When every ethnic population is calling for federalism, we believe that we should be allowed self-management and governance authority with our own people in the [local] parliament.”
The spokesperson noted that the announcement was only a suggestion and that it was up to the country’s major political parties to decide whether or not to run in the ethnic areas.
“Everyone who lives in Burma is ethnic and the important thing is to gain support from the people and for that, one needs to address their interests,” said Saw Than Myint.
“I think people will make their choice who to vote for based on the party and the individual running.”
Last November, in an International Crisis Group (ICG)’s report, Myanmar: Storm Clouds on the Horizon, the think tank warned that the domination of a single party in the 2015 general elections would be detrimental to the country and the National League for Democracy (NLD).
Citing the NLD’s landslide victory in the annulled 1990 elections and their decisive finish in 2012’s by-elections, ICG said potential NLD gains in ethnic areas could lead to the further erosion of trust between the Burman majority and the country’s myriad ethnic groups.
“It could also threaten the ethnic peace process, which is predicated on convincing ethnic armed groups that they can effectively pursue their objectives in the political arena – that is, the legislatures – rather than through armed struggle,” said the report.
“In many areas, ethnic parties will find it a challenge to win against the NLD, particularly in the many mixed-ethnicity constituencies where the vote will split along ethnic lines.”
Following 2012’s by-elections, opposition party National Democratic Force announced plans to restructure after losing about half of its members, including parliamentary representatives, who flocked back to the National League for Democracy.
Burma’s parliament is currently dominated by the military-backed Union Solidarity and Development Party, which won a majority of the legislature’s seats in the controversial 2010 elections.
The ENF consists of seven major ethnic parties including: the Chin National Party, All-Mon Region Democracy Party, Phalon-Sawaw Democratic Party, Rakhine Nationalities Democratic Party, Kayan [Karenni] National Party, Innthar National Development Party and Shan Nationalities Democratic Party.
Certainly clouds are gathering. But the situation is also most cloudy and the future is impossible to predict. What is needed is constant opinion poll. First the idea of ethnic nationalities is a contradiction to the concepr of unity; it is a presumption of disintegration of Burma.
It will be the greatest tragedy for all.
In a free and democratic Burma anyone can run anywhere for a seat in the Parliament.
Gpvernment needs to set up a study group to analyse the benefits of how Burma was governed by the kings, with ethnic elder leaders like sawbwas and duwas in the Royal Court.
In 1988 Crown Prince Schwebomin had suggested the Westminster model with a House of Thakins composed of Bamar and other ethnic leaders elected or appointed by virtue of traditional authority.
President Thein Sein should consider appointing ethnic leaders to the Upper Chamber whilst not interfering or disallowing major parties to contest the seats anywhere.
Most importantly the idea of anyone regardless of ethnicity serving any constituency in the interest of democracy must be most actively promoted.
Also all people must be given intensive education that in the interest of all ethnic chauvinism is most undesirable and that feferalism will play into the hands of external powers including the regional giants.
MP must be elected on the basis of their manifesto for how they will improve the lives of the voters, not for giving power to any ethnic group.
Economically, times are promising but politically very dangerous because of ethnic chauvinism and possibility of one party state elected by the majority who have little or no education.
Political ambitions ahead of what is good for Burma as a whole can ruin Burma worse than BSPP did. All Burmese, no matter where you are take note.
Sadly the idea is undemocratic. We have to respect each individual citizen’s right for their self determination and choice. Majority must also respect minority’s right.
If we follow through ethnic line and language, it will follow ex-Yugoslavia and Belgium. If it follows religious line, then will be like Ireland (even christians against christians). Human always look at differences first and not things that are in common.
One party system (always turn out to be authoritarian) isn’t the best options for multi-ethnicity country like Myanmar. It must be all inclusive to build Federal system and work together in a same goal for the Union as a whole.
Then again,if all the ethnic areas run by majority Bamar party, the minority will be under Bamar again. All the ethnic has to rule by themselves. Never again under Bamar rules. Never.
Or else, those Bamar who wants to run for election in ethnic area, the minimum requirement is that he/ she has to reside in that particular area for some period of times. Not only that the knowledge of local language which is fluently speaking and writing one of local language along with knowledge of history of ethnic group and culture. Without that all the ethnic area will be over run by Bamar.
Or else, all the ethnic states can impose rules on who can run for the election. Like, the minimum requirement is the person he/ she has to have local knowledge or reside in certain area for some period of time. Not only that he /she has to speak and write one of the local language fluently. Knowledge of history and culture is a must.Who knows one day, the official language of ethnic state will have to use ethnic language along with english as official language of states. Most of us in favor of dropping Burmese language as official language in the future. Vice versa, the same will apply for ethnic person to run for Bamar area has to resides in Bamar area for sometimes . Speak and write bamar langauage fluently is a must. Fair enough, right.
Citizen right is across the board and csn only be created by one sovereign state. Ondividual right to life, limb and liberty is national, nothing to do with federalism. Ethnic is a nonsense:legacy of Panglong timebomb that ignorant federalists without proper understanding of Rousseau’s concept of federation of ‘nation’ states. UK is an artifically ‘United': impetialist England with bankrupt Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, all separate countries.
Ethnic chauvinism is a recent development caused by neo-colonists and remnant colonists of England. The idea of ‘British’ is increasing questioned. It was useful to colonise backward Asia, Africa, and North America.
Throughout history Burma was a unitary kingdom without any ‘ethnic states'; curiously, that unitary kingdom had the strongest features of real federalism as the kings never engaged in ethnic conflicts or religious wars as in England. Yes, there were dynastic struggles but ruling families intermarried. The system of local administration through Sawbwas, Duwas, Myothugyis was very good. That is why the coloniser stepped into the shoes of Burmese monarchy and started favouring the minorities to create resentment on the part of the majority. This divide-and-rule tactic was applied in Cyprus too. In the European Union fedetalism means surrendering sovereignty of member states to create a superstate of Europe – centralisation in other words. In Burma, federalism means surrendering state power to unelected warlords and drug and jade and teak dealers; it has nothing to do with ethnic right, only to do with licence to be ninority oligarchy of unelected rebels.
It is astounfing how ignorant pro-federalists are. As there are 135 tribes, if thr principle is to be adheted to then there must be 135 federal states.That means back to the monarchical system of Sawbaws and Duwas. Not bad. So, Burma should have adopted the county system of local government, with the sovereign state only concerned with natural…
mopolies. The state of Burma must budget for bringing all citizens regardless of tribe or ethnicity to the same standard of living and equal opportunities. Federalism in the name of ethnic self-determination – very vague and without context – runs counter to equal opportunities and development of citizens as it means ‘ beggar thy neighbour’ policy of every warlord or rebel group sharing nothing with anyone else. For them federalism is only an excuse.
Burma cannot be compared with Northern Ireland where English colonists had brought in and settled protestant Scots in Catholic Ireland.
Burma cannot be compared with former Yugoslavia either. Commentators are so ignorant of the truth. Yugoslavia, united Slavs, was an artificial federation that only lasted as long as the Cold War. Belgium is another artificial state, useful for colonising Congo. Now the colonies are gone, the Flemish and Wallons are coming apart.
And Belgium monarchy is very recent.Nothing like 3000-year old Burmese monarchy.
Everything is different. Don’t compare uncomparable histories.
Purposeful thinking and sucking up to evil Clement Attlee is not very intelligent or educated. Think what is best for all people of Burma. Federalism/fragmentism will end up with everyone becoming slaves of big China and India. You have been warned. Shwebomin must come out openly and fight for the good of all Burmese people ie Bamars , Shans, Mons and everyone else native to Burma instead of grandstanding in Crown Council and living high life in Europe.
We know.
All states inside Myanmar should have their own local, province officials elected by local people and elected mayors, governors, state officials must reside in the area where are they are running for the post. This way we will have real local official elected to run local affairs. This is real federal system.
There should be two electorial systems. One for federal parlement and one for local/province. This way majority should not rule the minority.
The two election dates should be different.
there must no no such thing as state boundaries! these boundaries are the legacy of colonialism. We must never suck to the ex-colonists or fall into the trap they left behind.
what we must have is regions and counties. Yes, there must be local governments to decide on local issues. Tiny Burma is not USA, for goodness sake.
and there is not enough administrative skills to manage separate states; skill shortages are felt even at the national level. the notion of ‘union’ must be discarded and replaced with ‘United’. Are you all so blind why England calls Britain United Kingdom? Unite at home so that it could colonise elsewhere, and assassinate leaders of newly independent countries.
Burma must remain a unitary state and anyone who promotes federalism – refusing to recognise the danger – must be charged with treason. Burmese armed forces must remain soldily united and quell all rebellions.
So called Burma has never been unitary states as we know it. Successive kingdoms after another. Not only that , we have so much differences in ways of culture , language, history , etc. The best solution for Burma is Federal states. We have to respect and honor Panglong Agreement. Once the agreement was signed, the following generation has to respect it. The Panglong agreement is as valid today as the day it was signed.
The question is whether Burma should be recorded in the history as a country that cheat and not to be trusted. Honor does not exist.How about that?
As a Bamar inside Myanmar, personally I would like to see Federal state, with different ethic deciding then own affairs but united as Union of Myanmar and respecting each other’s culture and language. There will be ethnic from one area living in another ethic area also and we have to respect and protect their rights. No ethnic cleansing. But we also have to respect Panglong agreement if anyone of us want to leave the union, we should separate as friends. Hope fully we should know that we need each other and proud to stay in the “Real” union, respecting each other. We can’t unite a country through the guns.
Is Alliance taking Myanmar backwards. This is not a mediaval age.
We have to respect the right of every
one born in this country.
The need exist to unite the country.
Bravo Bamar, wish every Burmese are like you. Open minded plus understanding. The Union is where every our differences are respected . Regardless of race, ethnics or religion. At the same time, it is a country where everyone has the right to develope his/ her belief or culture without any prejudice. Bamar majority has to proof that it is the only solution not to go separate ways. We all have to work hard for the development of the country but Bamar has to work hard more to gain trust and confidence from minority ethnic groups.
Don’t be ridiculous. Burma always had bndeen unitary. England was ruled by French kings and German kings who did not speak English.
There never were sovereign ethnic states like the 13 English independent colonies that form union to create USA. Bamars, Shans and Mons had coalesed to become unitary kingdom despite dynastic struggles and intermarriage. A couple of demented nonentities will not disunite Burma.