Paper on Burma from Vum Son

[strider@xxxxxxxxxxx]

/* Written 12:27 am  Apr 10, 1994 by dmcmd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx in igc:bitl.seasia */
/* ---------- "Paper on Burma from Vum Son" ---------- */


                     Foundation for Democracy in Burma
                               P.O.Box 39045
                          Washington, D.C. 20016
                                    USA
                     Tel:301 499 0499 Fax:301 808 0872

Dear Friends:

Please find enclosed my paper on "Burma and Federalism". I would
like to inform the general Burmese public on political systems
practiced in Burma. Please read it and give me your opinion.

Do you think it is alright talk about Burma's future political
system while SLORC is in power?

Which of the two political systems (unitary or federal) would you
prefer for Burma?

Are you annoyed by the talk of federalism?

Do you think it will be feasible to make proper Burma a state?

Would you prefer the division of proper Burma into several states?

Do you find it proper for the Karen or Mon in the Delta region to
learn their language in state schools in addition to Burmese?

What alternative government system do you think will best unite the
peoples of Burma other than federalism?

Are you offended by any part of the paper?

The Foundation for Democray in Burma(FDB) intend to translate this
paper into Burmese. The FDB has translated Dr. Gene Sharp's "THE
ROLE OF POWER IN NONVIOLENT STRUGGLE" and distributed in the Burma
border areas in 1990 and 1992. Likewise this paper will be
distributed to the Burmese public.

If you find any portion that might offend a person, a group of
people, or people, please discuss with me. I would like to correct
it if mistakes or wrong judgements have been made.


Sincerely,


Dr. Vum Son
5809 Burgundy Street, Capitol Heights, MD 20743, USA
Tel: 301 4990499   Fax 301 808 0872


*************************************************************
                       Paper Begins
*************************************************************


Why is Burma being held hostage by its own army? Why does the
Burmese Army murder its own citizens?  Why is a potentially rich
country so poor? Why is Burma not free and prosperous like its
neighboring countries? Have you ever asked yourself why there are
civil wars being fought in Burma? Do you know what the Karen, Mon,
Kachin, Arakanese, Shan, Karenni, Naga, and other ethnic groups
want?  Is there any solution to Burma's problems?  This article is
an attempt to expose its readers to the reasons behind Burma's
problems and to search for any possible solutions to these
problems.


Burma and Federalism

Vum Son


Introduction

Bogyoke Aung San, as representative of the Bama, single handedly
convinced most of the frontier people that they could build
together a nation under the unity in diversity principle. He said:
"...we must carry out special uplift work amongst them (frontier
people) so that they could be brought to our level and finally to
the world level together with us." Since his death, Burma's
leaders, civilian or military, have been steering Burma towards
political nationalization and cultural Burmanization at a huge
price. Today forty six years after Burma's independence from
Britain, Burma's ruling military is the world's worst human rights
abuser. Burma is the world's largest producer of opium and heroin.
Once the rice bowl of the world during colonialism  today Burma
produce not enough rice to feed its own people. Burma has one of
the highest inflation rate and it is one of the ten poorest
countries in the world. Over thirty thousand "Burmese" women are
working as prostitutes in Thai brothels because they can not find
work in Burma. Burma has one of the biggest armed forces in the
world fighting against its own citizens, mostly frontier people,
who are demanding democracy and/or federalism.  Thousands of
Burma's democratic minded people including  Daw Aung San Suu Kyi
are incacerated. National unity in Burma is at its  worst since the
Panglong conference.

This paper attempts to analyse the relations between Burma and
federalism and what it means to the peoples of Burma.

What is the Panglong agreement?

The Panglong agreement, signed on 12th February, 1947  by the  Shan
Saohpalong, Kachin Duwas, Chin Chiefs, and the Bama leaders led by
Bogyoke Aung San, which is regarded as the foundation for forming
a national state,  not as an instrument of incorporation, but an
agreement signifying the desire of the peoples bordering Burma to
work together with the Bama leadership to attain independence.  It
was the acceptance by the Bama the rights, autonomy, and
territorial integrity of the non-Bama and it did not specify the
form of government system.  Article 5  said: "full autonomy in
internal administration for Frontier Areas is accepted in
principle" Article 8 " ....without prejudice  to the financial
autonomy now vested in the Federated Shan States"  and Article 9
 ......the feasibility of adopting for the Kachin Hills and the Chin
Hills financial arrangements similar to those between Burma and the
Federated Shan States" can be interpeted as federalism being agreed
upon. Bogyoke Aung San said at the Panglong conference: " .. the
Hill people would be allowed to administer their own areas  in any
way they please and the Burmese would not interfere in their
internal administration"  and the representatives of the Hill
people believed him and signed the agreement.

What is the Frontier Areas Committee of Enquiry?

Shortly after the Panglong conference the Frontier Areas Committee
of Enquiry (the chairman was a colonial officer and the committee
members were Bama politicians) conducted a conference in which the
leaders and representatives of the Frontier People were asked to
express their views upon the form of association with the
Government of Burma. The Mon and Arakanese did not take part in the
conference. All the frontier people demanded the right of
secession, equality, and self-determination. The Karen, who lived
side-by-side with the Bama and the Mon, had reaped some of the
benefits of colonial development and became politically and
socially mobilized unlike the Chin, Kachin, or Shan. The Second
World War had thrown the Karen, who were loyal to the British, and
the nationalist Bama on opposite sides of the firing line, and the
atrocities committed by the Burma Independent Army against the
Karen, exaberated their alienation from and distrust of the Bama in
general and the AFPFL in particular. The Karen could not agree
among themselves whether to form a federal state in Burma or
otherwise. The Chin, who had no knowledge of nation building or
federalism simply said: We want to join Burma but we want to decide
our matters by ourselves".  It was not clear whether they wanted
federation or amalgamation.  The writers of the constitution
(below) interpreted this as amalgamation. Therefore the Chin were
given a special division instead of statehood.

What kind of government system was incorporated in the 1947
constitution?

Based on the Panglong agreement, the findings of the Frontier Areas
Committee of Enquiry, and the discussions at the Constituent
Assembly meeting, a constitution for the Union of Burma was
drafted. Proper Burma became the mother country. Shan and Karenni
were given the right to secede after ten years, the Kachin State
was not given the right of secession because there were Bama
communities in the state.  The Chin were given a Special Division.
The Karen of Salween district and adjoining areas with Karen
population was given a state after independence. The question of
the Mon and Arakan did not come up for discussion.  The
constitution recognized the need for federalism and drafted a quasi
federal constitution, but with proper Burma controlling from the
center, the affairs of the nation under a unitary system.

Ethnic insurgency was therefore inevitable. Karen, Karenni, Mon,
and Arakan rose in revolt just after independence because their
case had not been in the agenda of the leading  politicians.

What was the reason behind the Shan proposal for the amendment of
the constitution in 1961? What was the outcome?

A constitutional amendment was proposed in 1961 - 1962 by the Shan
with the support of other non-Bama. It is remembered as the Federal
Movement of 1961-1962. It was initiated by veteran Shan
politicians, such as U Kya Bu,  Panglong Khun Htee, U Tun Myint Lay
(Taunggyi), and etc. They consequently obtained the attention of
Sao Khun Hkio, the head of the Shan State, and other Chaofa or
Saobwas, and as well, the support of Sao Shwe Thaike, the first
President of the Union of Burma, and the then Speaker of the
Chamber of Nationalities (the Upper House).

The background of the movement: The insurgency in Burma spilled
over to the Shan State and Taungyi, the capital, was under the
Karen National Defence Organization (KNDO) from August 3 to
November 23, 1949.  The Burma Army who came to drive the intruders
out behaved arrogantly as a conquering army. Rape, brutality, and
other criminal acts against the Shan by the members of the military
were rampant. Shan State was put under martial law which gave the
Burma Army a free hand to deal with the Shan as it pleased. In 1950
the Burma Army moved against Chinese Nationalist or KMT troops who
towards the end of 1949 straggled over from China into the Wa
States and Kengtung. The KMT  recruited local people namely Lahu,
Wa and other Shan hill peoples and supported themselves with cross
border trade and narcotics, which made the Golden Triangle the
world's biggest opium producer in the world. The Burma Army's
campaigned against the KMT lasted until 1954, (when the martial law
was lifted), but the Burma Army remained in the Shan States. During
this time Bama military commanders excercised extraconstitutional
power and  behaved like warlords. The Burma Army was an independent
entity taking orders only from its commander-in-chief, who was
subordinated to no one. Shan politicians complained in vain the
situation to the central government and they looked helplessly as
the Burma Army continued committing atrocities against the Shan
people. Eventually young Shan led by Bo Maung and some university
students rebelled against the government to protect the Shan people
and lead the state out of the Union.

Previously mentioned Shan politicians were concerned with the
behaviour of the military, and feared that due to the  indifference
of the central government, the rebellion  would spread and/or be
exploited by Chinese Kuomintang  forces or by the Burmese
communists. As a last effort to avoid civil war and secession,
thirty three Shan leaders met in Taungyi in February 1961 to form
the Constitutional Revision Steering Committee, and they drew up a
memorandum which they laid out before the Union government. Other
non-Bama leaders were also concerned with atrocities and the
highhandedness of Burma Army commanders and officers.  Moreover,
all leaders and all state governments shared the view that the
Union, per the 1947 constitution, was a colonial-like structure:
that is, the constituent states did not enjoy enough power and
rights in matters of taxation and revenues, and they were, as such,
reduced to begging from the Mother Government (the Pyi-Ma
government).

Concerning the above, there was a feeling that the Mother
government took more from the constituent states (via revenues from
mining, forest, household tax, industry, and export of products
from the states) than it gave back ( in grants to the states). In
other words the Mother government appropriated one kyat and gave
back only 30 pyas--for which the states were expected to be
eternally grateful. That is, as per the revenue and tax
arrangements in the 1947 constitution, the states were prevented
from utilizing their own resources and wealth, and were moreover
made dependent on the Mother government for a lesser share of what
was theirs in the first place.

In sum, there were two important issues involved. One, the question
of financial rights and autonomy, and two, the question of power
(especially the control of the military, and its, usurpation of
power in the constituent states), and power sharing.

The goal of the movement was to remedy this basic imbalance, to
change the colonial-like arrangement and transform it into an one
between co-independent entities.  The nationalities leaders
reasoned that it made no sense to exchange foreign colonial rule
for a native one.

Specifically, what they proposed was a constitutional, legal,
peaceful renegotiation of the prevailing relations between the
Mother government and the constituent sates.  The states were
dependent on Burma proper and the Union government for approval in
undertaking many actions that properly belong to the states. The
proposal called for the creation of a union of coequal states;
separation of Burma proper from the national government and for
Burma proper to be treated as a separate and coequal state with the
others; the two chambers of the national parliament to be made
equal in power so that the Chamber of Nationalities could protect
the interests of the states, and the complete separation of the
Mother government from that of the states, and latter to have
sufficient power and a large enough financial base to manage their
own affairs. The remedy proposed was that since all Union members
were co-independent and co-dependent, and since the Union was based
on the 1947 Panglong accord, a reform of the constitution in a more
equal, more federal, less colonial-like direction, was inevitable.

Such a reform would, the nationalities believed, remove frictions
and grievances which was contributing to dissension and unrest, and
would strengthen the Union.  The underlying aim was to prevent
rebellions and/or undermine those calling for rebellion,
secession, i.e. by removing factors contributing to  dissension,
aliennation, and disunity.

At the heart of the constitutional reform proposals were two major
issues. One, the rescheduling of power and responsibilities (the
legislative list) between the "Union" government and those of the
constituent states (which underlay the imbalance in revenues and
taxation power), and two, clarifying what constituted the "common
subjects" Union subjects ( which included defence, and thus the
power of the military, especially in the constituent states).

The two issues were fundamental to the shape and nature of the
Union itself. According to the reform leaders, resolutuions of
problems related to the fundamental issues would involve,
rationally, a fundamentally rearrangement of the Union structure.
That is, a federal government would have to be set up in place of,
and distinct from, the Mother government (which was that of the
Bama state).  A further and deeper implication was that the Union
should be composed of equal, co-dependent, co-independent states --
a Union without a colonial Mother country, Mother government and
colony like, dependent, subordinate states (exploited by the Mother
government).

The federal movement and its reform proposals was positive in the
sense that it indicated the desire of nationalities leaders and
governments to fortify the Union. It indicated that they were
concerned with preventing armed outbreaks by peasants who bore the
brunt of army atrocities, and in undermining elements which
advocated armed struggle and/or secession. It also indicated that
non-Bama leaders were oriented toward legal, constitutional,
peaceful ways, and preferred negociations and discussions, and
disapproved of illegal, violence, and extremist methods. Had the
federal movement was brought to its conclusion, it was most likely
that armed insurrection by the nationalities would cease.
U Nu, the then Prime Minister, was open to, and welcomed the chance
to discuss problems and solutions regarding constitutional
imbalances.  Unfortunately, the federal movement provided General
Ne Win and his lieutenants who had campaigned heavily for the
Stable AFPFL fraction and lost the 1960 general election, with what
they thought an attractive and popular (powerful) justification for
staging a coup in 1962.

The coup not only killed the opportunity to strengthened national
unity, but killed democracy and destroyed Burma -- so that it is
now the most backward country in S.E. Asia, and the fourth most
backward country in the world.

What is the Manerplaw agreement?

In 1991  Burma's democratic forces, namely the Democratic Alliance
of Burma, the National Democratic Front, the National League for
Democracy, and the National Coalition Government of the Union of
Burma, opposing the dictatorship of the State Law and Order
Restoration Council, signed the Manerplaw agreement. The democratic
forces agreed to make federalism the government system in Burma.


What is National Unity and the purpose of forming a national state?

The way a national state formation is arranged  is not just a
matter of drawing up a perfect or ideal constitution on paper
according to a desired norms or principles. What is more important
are the meaning of underlying principles and the kind of actual
configurations which inform political and territorial incorporation
and/or integration. In this respect, one of the most important
meaning is: the meaning of unity or national unity, which inturn
revolves around the issue of how "nationalism (national
loyalty/disloyalty, etc.) is defined.

Basically, there are two ways by which nationalism is defined.  One
is by the cultural-historical  ("civilization") values of one
ethnic group (which is usually a majority group or tribe ).  This
is racial, ethnic, or tribal nationalism. It is analytically
constructed from pride in one's "superior or unique" culture,
language, and history, as being a race of conquerors, possessed of
a higher civilization than others, or as "creating" or "owning"
the existing state (state formation), and etc.

Such a concept of nationhood and nationalism is the kind adhered to
by Hitler, White supremacists of South Africa,  White colonial
rulers of the past, and in Burma it is represented by the Maha Bama
mentality of the generals of the Burma Army (i.e. Ne Win and the
SLORC).

The logic and the rationality that flows from this tribal ideology
and outlook is the notion that the "lesser peoples" are, at best,
"younger brothers" ( usually as conquered  or inferior people) who
must be governed like children or savages, or, made to reform and
adopt the superior values and ways of "big brothers or conquerors".
The principle underlying such a logic is control, centralization,
the cultural-political subordination of "lesser peoples", and the
use of coercion to force cultural changes ( as in cultural
genocide).  The result is intolerance, racism, bigotry, and other
undemocratic, despotic, authoritarian attitudes.

The above logic or rationality is closely related and or
intertwined with the centralization impulse vis-a-vis structural
arrangements in state formation.  Territories which are
incorporated into the new state are viewed as belonging to the
dominant ethnic or tribal core of the state, and hence the notion
that the polity must be directly administered and controlled in a
centrist-unitary mode. In the minds of power holders and elites who
prefers such an arrangement, such centralized control and
arrangements reflects and enhances their sense of tribal or racial
superiority and uniqueness, even though in fact no real or visible
benefits accrue to the masses or to the majority of that particular
dominant tribe or race.

Hence, in this kind of thought, and its logic and rationalization,
federalism is a sign of weakness, disunity, a watering down of
historical achievements and "national glory", an invitation to
defeat, etc.

The other basic principle which informs the formation of a state
and nationhood and national unity is one in which tribal and racial
elements, as mentioned above, are marginal to the act of living
together under one flag.  The notion underlying this principle is
democracy and equality which forms crucial component of a
democratic civilized view.

In this democratic way of seeing the world, no one is inherently or
by ascription superior or inferior.  Further, no one is always
right and vice versa, and as such, it is believed that there are
many solutions to any problem.  In a world-view which is
democratic, differences and diversity are the norm, and as such,
being different does not have a connotation of deviance,
abnormality, or inferiority.

Hence, nationhood or national unity is constructed around
structures and within a framework which are ethnically and racially
neutral.  What is important is shared experience and a shared
future ( as expressed by General Aung San who said :" ..it is now
for you (frontier people) to decide your future and to decide
whether you will share our freedom as equal partners" ), mutual
benefits, mutual recognition and mutual adjustments.

In substance the sharing of power and responsibilities in a
multicultural polity means some form of federal arrangement. The
fact that federal arrangements exist in many mono-cultural
polities, (such as Germany and Australia) attest to the efficiency
of federalism in the smooth management of national affairs and in
resolving national problems. Even in unitary arrangements in the
West and (in India and non-democratic China), there is no perfect
centralized control, only a centralized coordinated administrative
mode which allows for much autonomy and self-management of local
governments.  Hence a federal arrangement is all the more necessary
for a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic national or political entity.


The people of Burma must be acutely aware of the
implications/ramifications of the non-federal, non-democratic
alternative. The alternative is an undemocratic, control oriented,
centralized-unitary arrangements based on a non-democratic and non-
modern (medieval) notion of nationalism (tribal nationalism).  In
the structural context, this means a colonial-like arrangement with
one ethnic group (at the center, or of the Mother Country) ruling
over others (in the peripheries, or in the subordinate states).
This formula has been tried in Burma and has failed.

The crux of the matter is therefore what sort of a uniting ideology
( which informs structural arrangements) do the people want.  If
this uniting ideology is mono-cultural (Bama racial/tribal
nationalism and /or Bama culture), the ideology will not unite, and
worse, the state structures and framework, resulting from tribal
nationalism, will not only sow conflict, but will deprive the Bama
themselves of democracy and other democratic rights.

The bottom line is do the peoples of Burma want democracy or not.
If democracy is what they want, they must recognize that democracy
in a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural context means some form of
federalism and greater decentralization (in the excercise of power,
assertion of control, and the discharge of responsibilities).

What is unitary government system?

In a Unitary system of government all power legally derives from
the central government.  States or provinces have only the powers
the central government gives them. The central government holds the
principal power over administrative units, which are virtually
agencies of the central government.  Some countries that appear
federal are actually unitary.  Their provinces are administrative
units rather than political units with separate powers.  Great
Britain, for example, has a unitary system of parliamentary
government, and many ostensibly federal governments, notably
totalitarian regimes with one political party, are in fact unitary
systems.


Does the Unitary system work well for Burma?

Since the inception of the Union of Burma most Bama politicians
blamed ethnic and  cultural diversity on the divide and rule
policies of the hated colonialist. Rarely Bama politicians
acknowledge ethnic diversity existed from time "immemorial". They
also tried to forget Bama highhandedness towards their neighbours
whom they conquered such as the Mon, Arakan, and the Karen. How the
Bama think of the diversities in Burma take the example of Thakin
Mya's inaugural address to the 1947 Constituent Assembly as
president of that body:

"Though we may see some superficial differences when we look at one
another, yet in essence we are just one.  There is hardly any other
nation more homogenenous than the people of Burma. Economically and
geographically our country is an indivisible unity. In our affinity
of race and language, unity of culture and historical traditions,
we have the characteristics of a strong and united nation".

Thakin Mya's view was shared by General Ne Win: "Our Union is just
one homogenous whole. A Chin, for instance, can go wherever he
likes within the Union and stay wherever he likes.  So, too, a
Burmese.  Everyone can take part in any of the affairs, whether
political, economic, administrative or judicial. He can chose his
own role. When this has been achieved, we will not need to have
separate governments within the Union."

Bogyoke Aung San clearly recognized and accepted ethnic diversity.
Under his leadership, the AFPFL decided to give nationalities, any
group which formed one tenth of the area's population the right to
maintaion their distinct identities  as separate units, union
states, autonomous states, or national areas, or national
minorities, so as to protect them. However, all Bama politicians,
including Boyoke Aung San wanted the Pyi Ma or proper Burma to play
the dorminant role, or they equated proper Burma with Burma, and
believed that it should receive the lion share of responsibilities
and priviledges. The national states thus became satellites of
proper Burma, with no political importance or power, and the
subordinates of proper Burma. This was the biggest obstacle for
national unity from day one of Burma's independence until today.


Therefore the government of the Union of Burma from 1948 to 1962
was not a typical unitary nor federal government. The union
government held the principal power. Burma was divided into states
and divisions.  If one look at the names such as the Shan, or
Kachin States they sound very much like a federal State.  But the
administration of these states were controlled by the Union
government, which is the government of proper Burma.  The states
were made dependent on the Union government for financial
asisstance to run the administration. They were administrative
units and not political units with separate powers.

Proper Burma was divided into seven divisions. The difference
between the states and the divisions was the representation of the
states by the heads of the states. He had the administrative
authority of the state. The head of state had a second function,
i.e., to serve at the pleasure of the prime minister of the Union
government as the minister of his state in the Union cabinet. The
head of the state was appointed by the prime minister after
consultation with the State Council. Therefore his primary
responsibility was to the prime minister  and not to the State
Council. This peculiar arrangement depreciated his role as his
state's chief administrator and at the same time it lessened his
effectiveness as his state's spokesman in the Union government.
This office provided the second example of the inferiority of the
states to the Union.  The concept of Burma proper being the
mainstay of power, transformed Burma proper into a colonial center
and the states its colonies.

The head of the states and especially the minister for the Chin
affairs had so little power in his own state that he had no
authority to create even the post of an office peon. Although
sitting in the Union cabinet, state ministers  had very limited or
no influence in the policies of the state, which were in the hands
of the prime minister and his senior ministers, who came from
proper Burma.

The administration of Burma proper is directly under the Union
government,  or in other words the Union government was the
government of Burma proper.  Burma proper had no separate or
distinctive political institutions of its own.  Its parliament,
administration, judiciary, and local government were those of the
Union.  This made Burma proper a unitary state. Representatives
from the nationalities participated in the Union Parliament  and
held portfolios in the Union government shared the decision making
and administrative function of Burma proper with its own
representatives.  Thus no state in the Union was autonomous; all
were linked and controlled by innumerable threads. to the Bama
dominated center (or so called "Union" government)

The day- to-day running of the administration of the states and
similarly the divisions were in the hands of the commissioners. The
commissioners received their administrative orders directly from
the central government. The state ministers had very little
influence on the administration of their respective  states.  Not
only in the division level but also in the district and township
level the central government dispatched its administrative agents
as deputy commissioners, sub-divisional officers and township
officers.

The education system was run by the central government and enforced
the teaching of the Bama language in the schools and the teaching
of nationalities' languages were limited to primary schools.
Development projects were in the hands of the National Planning
Commission of the (so called) "Union" government, which distributed
development projects where it deemed fit.

The arrangment of quasi federal but basically unitary government
system brought dissatisfaction and disunity among the peoples of
Burma.  It created nationalist feelings in the minds of the
nationality groups, and the injustices they felt resulted in
fighting for their rights and national interests. The outcome was
the absence of a sense of loyalty of the ethnic non-Bama to the
"Union" government and  armed resistance. The unitary system failed
to produce a united Burma.

Bogyoke Aung San had offered the idea of unity in diversity, and
the non-Bama nationalities had accepted the idea and agreed to join
Burma. They watched in horror the creation of a unitary state and
felt betrayed by the measures  Bama political leaders (civilian as
well as military) undertook as they proceeded with political
nationalization and cultural Burmanization. They took up arms
because they feared the Burmanization of their language, culture,
traditions, customs, and the disappearance of their identity
altogether.

Not only Burma as a whole, but each division and state is composed
of several ethnic sub-groups, and there will always be suspicion
and distrust and disunity unless some other system is found to
address this diversity. Boyoke Aung San understood this problem. He
said: " Now, when we build our new Burma shall we build it as a
union or a unitary state? In my opinion, it will not be feasible to
set up a unitary state.  We must set up a union with properly
regulated provisions as should be made to safeguard the rights of
national minorities."

" What is that particularly agitates a national minority?  A
minority is discontented ... because it does not enjoy the right to
use its native language.  Permit it to use its native language and
the discontent will pass of itself. ..A minority is discontented
 ...because it does not enjoy liberty of conscience, liberty of
movement, etc. Give it these liberties and it will cease to be
discontented.  Thus national equality in all forms .. is an
essential element in the solution of national problem." As Boyoke
Aung San had forseen, for the last forty six years the country is
torn by civil war.  Today Burma is under a brutal junta where Bama
and non-Bama can not discuss matters in equal levels. The unitary
system does not bring unity to the peoples of Burma.  It does not
work.

What was the government system during the Burma Socialist Programme
Party?

Shortly after the coup in March 1962 General Ne Win and his
Revolutionary Council(RC) replaced the the existing political and
administrative system in both Burma proper and the states with a
new centralized hierachy of administrative councils, called the
Security and Administration Councils (SAC), which radiated from
Rangoon. The RC abolished the offices of the head and minister of
state, the state councils, and the various state administrations.
A new State Supreme Council responsible directly to Rangoon, and
inferior councils responsible to the one immediately above was
established.  The country was then put under a single centralized
ruling authority.  The SAC was purely military until 1972, when
civilians from the Burma Socialist Program Party (BSPP) were added.


The military was the superior ruling body and ultimately the people
were governed as "lesser people". There was no freedom of speech
and expression, and the state was isolated from the outside world,
criticism of the system was answered with arrest and punishment so
that there was no one to check the functions of the system. This
gave the military a free hand to function as they pleased so that
corruption was rampant, mismanagement was routine, and power was
misused by the power holders and ultimately the system failed.

The state nationalized all enterprises which meant that the BSPP
not only had to administer but also to run the trade and commerce.
The central government was overburdened with its responsibilities
which however was not shouldered by those who were in high
positions (they cared more for their own pockets than the country's
welfare). Eventually the economy collapsed and the father of the
BSPP General Ne Win abandoned the party and the system in 1988.
BSPP leaders while speaking in ways that seemed to lend support to
ideal of unity in diversity, persued a variety of policies that led
to the forced assimilation of peoples into the Bama culture. They
emphasized the nationalization of the society and the Burmanization
of its culture.   This reminds us of the Maha-Bama tribal, racist
slogan "one blood, one voice, and one command", which was created
during the Japanese facist rule.


What kind of system is being used by the State Law and Order
Restoration Council (SLORC) to run the country?

The SLORC is identical with the BSPP. However, it has more power,
is better armed, and has a more sophisticated intelligence
gathering apparatus. It has an overcentralized decision making
apparatus. It is dangerously paranoid and its agencies are
entrenched in the states, divisions, districts, subdivisions, and
township level. The SLORC oppressed the people and they live in
constant fear of being accused of anything. This is a unitary
system typical of a tyrant regime, a rigid police state, or a
totalitarian regime. The State Law and Order Restoration Council
enforces unwritten "laws" and restores an unnamed "order". It is
completely unclear  whose law and order is being restored. The
SLORC persisted in denying basic freedom of speech and assembly,
and practice arbitrary intrusions into private life. Democracy is
far away. If Boyoke Aung San be alive today he would be in jail
because he said: " A state law based on complete democracy in the
country is required, prohibiting all national privileges without
exception and all kinds of disabilities and restrictions on the
rights of national minorities."  The SLORC or Bama military is
responsible for the suffering of the people unequaled in history.

(SLORC's recent cease-fire arrangements with  armed resistance
groups, predominantly the nationalities, does not mean that the
military is addressing the problems facing Burma. We can clearly
see now what the SLORC's has in mind. The Wa and Kokang signed
cease-fire agreements with the SLORC three years ago. The
nationalities agreed for a cease-fire because they wanted to find
political solutions. But the SLORC is not interested in political
solutions.  The Wa, who were invited to the so called "national
convention", are striving for a statehood in the union, but their
cause was not allowed to be included in the agenda of the
discussions. On the other hand the SLORC allows the Wa and Kokang
a freehand in their areas. That means that the Wa and Kokang can do
whatever they like in their own land (increase opium and heroin
production) but they are not allowed to say anything towards the
central government. This will apply to the Kachin, who were not
invited to the "national convention". The same thing will happen to
the Karen and Mon should they sign the cease-fire arrangement.
SLORC's gain: the army of the nationalities are becoming idle and
their readiness for combat decrease. The SLORC can continue to rule
without interference from the nationalities and apply  unitary
system of government with the Maha-Bama-Tatamadaw mentality).

Burma's misfortune and sad present plight is due to the misplaced
and destructive passion of the Bama military  for anti-democratic
centralized control (and associated practices and structures)
copied out of colonial style of control and administration.

The salvation of the peoples of Burma and its continued unity
depends on decentralization, based on democratic values and
definitely not on tribal or racial sentiments and values.  Tribal
nationalism as practiced by the military and attendant passion for
centralized or colonial control are definitely and totally
incompatible with democracy, (which the Bama desires).  It is
further impractical, irrational, and unworkable as proved by recent
history.

Are there any other government systems?

There are two more types of government systems: a confederation and
a federal system.

A confederation is an alliance of independent countries that retain
their respective autonomies, for joint action or cooperation on
specific matters that affect them in common.  Such action usually
affects the member countries directly and the citizens only
indirectly.  A prime example of a successful confederation,
converted later to a federal system is Switzerland.  The process of
its union began in 1290 with perpetual-alliance treaties binding
three cantons, or small territories. The number of cantons included
in the treaties gradually increased and the confederation continued
until 1848, when it was transformed into a federal government. The
United States started as a confederation and remained so until
1789, when it adopted the federal form of government.

The incorporation of the right of secession reserved for some
states by the 1947 constitution of Burma may be interpreted as
accepting in part a confederation.

What is the federal system?

A federal government, or federation, is usually formed through the
political union of two or more formerly independent states under
one sovereign government.  Two levels of government exist side by
side in the nation and political power is divided between the
central or national government and smaller, locally autonomous
units such as provinces or states. Federalism unites these separate
states or other polities within an overarching political system in
such a way as to allow each to maintain its own fundamental
political integrity.  Each possesses certain assigned powers and
funtions and is limited to its own sphere.  Within that sphere it
is autonomous and independent; neither may arrogate to itself
powers assigned to the other; each operates directly upon the
people; and neither is dependent on the other for its legislation,
taxes, or administration. The system does this by requiring that
basic policies be made and implemented through negotiation in some
form, so that all the members can share in making and executing
decisions. The political principles that animate federal systems
emphasize the primacy of bargaining and negociated coordination
among several power centers: they stress the virtues of dispersed
power centers as a means for safeguarding individual and local
liberties.

What kind of society or community appeal to federalism?

Federal systems have a strong appeal to communities that desire to
unite for limited purposes while retaining a large measure of
autonomy. The proposal for world government and for European union
have been framed in terms of federal principles.  The appeal of
form of government is particularly strong in nascent states of
Africa and Asia, many of which contain communities differing in
religion, language, tribal origin, social organization, economic
interest, or by their previous history as separate states.

Depending on the nature and intensity of these diversities, the
nation may adopt any of a number of instrumentalities to articulate
and protect the differences to which value is ascribed. Some of
these instrumentalities are aided by representing the states
equally in the upper house of the
national legislature, a device frequently employed in federal
systems to ensure representation of regional interests.  Surely,
the Union of Burma fits this framework perfectly because Burma is
a multi-ethnic state. Within each of most of the states and
divisions in Burma resides communities with differing languages,
cultures, and customs. Under federalism these ethnic groups can
have their local autonomy, where they can maintain and develope
their own identity.

Boyoke Aung San recognized the need for such a "unity in diversity"
and he moved a resolution at the AFPFL Pre-Constitution Assembly
Convention on May 23, 1947 called Aung San's "Fourteen Points."
Point No. 3 said: territories ..... as possessing some of the
following characteristics, namely:
   (i)   a defined geographical area with a character of its own,
  (ii)   unity of language different from the Burmese,
 (iii)   unity of culture,
  (iv)   community of historical traditions,
   (v)   community of economic interests and a measure of
          economic self sufficiency,
   (vi)  a fairly large population, and
  (vii)  the desire to maintain its distinct identity as a separate
unit,

shall possess the status of "the Union State," " Autonomous State"
or the "National area"as may be determined by the Constituent
Assembly and thereafter according to the law of the Constitution
and exercise all such powers and functions as may be vested in or
assigned to them.

Which countries adopt federal system of government?

A number of nations have adopted various forms of federal
government in order to achieve viable independent statehood while
preserving local autonomy and protecting community interests.
Federalism helps protect and perpetuate diversities that are highly
valued by the constituent peoples.  Countries which today have
essentially federal systems of government include the United
States, Canada, Mexico, Australia, India, Switzerland, and Germany.

Is the federal system in one country the same as in other
countries?

The essential element of federalism is the distribution of powers
between the general government and the component states. This
distribution can take several forms. The powers of the general
government may be enumerated and the rest left to the states, as in
Switzerland, Australia, and the US. Then powers of the states may
be enumerated and the rest left to the general government, as in
Canada.  Or the powers of both governments may be listed, as is
done in India  and elsewhere. If both are enumerated, it is usually
provided that the conflicts between the two shall be resolved in
favor of the general government. It is not necessary that the
powers be mutually exclusive; shared functions and concurrent
powers are found in every federation and in recent years have
expanded significantly.

Let us examine Switzerland as an example of federalism.  The Swiss
are able to accept equal rights for all three different language
speaking peoples through a political concept, despite the fact that
German is spoken by 65 to 70 percent of the population, and no
"nation" claims any priority with regard to its constitutional
status.  Also, the effective application of the concensus-principle
(vs. majority-principle) by the Swiss nation into 26 states, or
cantons, and by secularization of the federal state. This is
supported by the concept of decentralization.  The Swiss enjoy
multi-citizenship which give them the same rights in each canton
regardless of an individual's primary origin.

Who controls what power?

The assignment of powers and functions varies considerably among
federations. Some of the powers most commonly made national are the
regulation of commerce, defense, immigration, currency, and foreign
affairs.  Some federal powers are held by both the federal or
national government and the various state governments such the
power to tax. These are called concurrent powers because they are
excercised independently by different levels of government.
Education, highway construction, criminal justice, and health and
social welfare are commonly in the hands of the state governments.
Many federal powers are not held concurrently by the states for
example to declare war on a foreign country.

How is the federal government related to the state governments?

Federal relationship must be established or confirmed through a
perpetual covenant of union, usually embodied in a written
constitution that outlines the terms by which power is divided or
shared; the constitution can be altered only by extraordinary
procedures. These constitutions are distinctive in being not simply
compacts between rulers and the ruled, but involving the people,
the general government, and the states constituting the federal
union.  The constituent states, moreover, often retain
constitution-making rights of their own. Some agency is usually
given authority to review acts of the two levels of government to
ensure conformity with the constitutional distribution.  This has
to be done by the courts. In Switzerland, however, the judiciary
may not invalidate an act of the national legislature, and the
function of guarding the distribution of powers depends upon the
people acting directly by referendum.

The political system itself must reflect the constitution by
actually diffusing power among a number of substantially self-
sustaining centers. Such a diffusion of power may be termed
noncentralization. Noncentralization is a way of ensuring in
practice that the authority to participate in exercising political
power cannot be taken away from the general or the state
governments without common consent.

What happens if there are diverse groups in a province of a federal
state?

An element of the federal system is the territorial democracy. This
has two faces: the use of areal divisions to ensure neutrality and
equality in the representation of the various groups and interests
in the polity and the use of such divisions to secure local
autonomy and representation for diverse groups within the same
civil society. Territorial neutrality has proved highly useful in
societies that are changing, allowing their supporters to vote in
relatively equal territorial units.  At the same time, the
accommodation of very diverse groups whose differences are
fundamental rather then transient by giving them territorial power
bases of their own has enhanced the ability of federal systems to
function as vehicles of political integration while preserving
democratic government.

How is the citizen represented in the federal system?

Modern federal systems generally provide direct lines of
communication between the citizenry and all the governments that
serve them. The people may and usually do elect representatives to
all the governments, and all of them may and usually do administer
programs that directly serve the individual citizen. This is based
on a sense of common nationality binding the constituent polities
and people together. In some countries this sense of nationality
has been inherited, as in Germany, while in the United States,
Argentina, and Australia it had to be partly invented. Canada and
Switzerland have had to evolve this sense in order to hold together
strongly divergent nationality groups. In the newly formed federal
systems of India and Malaysia, the future of federalism is
endangered by the absence of such a national sense. Because little
consideration was given to the interests of the adverse divergent
nationality groups in Burma by the various past governments under
unitary system  there was little or no sense of common nationality
binding and only through federalism lines of cummunication between
the citizenry and the governments could be built.

Does federalism favours separation? (Is it true the Tatmadaw's
assertion that Federalism is separation?)

In federal states, the national government possesses substantial
powers which can be enforced even against the principle units, and
it has the authority to act directly upon the individual in
collecting taxes and enforcing its own laws. It is not dependent
upon the will of the member units because it is supreme within the
range of its constitutional authority.  It is generally agreed,
also, that in federal systems the member units are not free to
nullify the laws of the central government or to withdraw from the
federal union. A federal union has the quality of constitutional
permanence.

(There can be no federalism without democracy and under
dictatorship, there is no democracy. Necessary ingredients of
democracy such as freedom of speech, freedom of movement, and
personal liberty can not exist under any dictatorship. It is clear
that dictatorship and democracy or federalism can not exist
concurrently. Therefore Bama tatmadaw's dictatorship will collapse
if federalism exists in Burma. That is why the Bama Tatmadaw
mislead the people of Burma from the real meaning of federalism.)

Does the geography play a role in building a federal union?

Geographic necessity has played a part in promoting the maintenance
of the union within federal systems. The Mississippi Valley in the
United States, the Alps in Switzerland, the Island character of the
Australian continent, the frontier mountains in Burma, and the
mountains and jungles surrounding Brazil have all been influences
promoting unity. In this connection, the necessity for a common
defense against common enemies has stimulated federal union in the
first place and acted to maintain it.

Can large and small sizes of provinces exist geographically or
populationwise in a federal state?

The constituent polities in a federal system must be fairly equal
in population and wealth or else balanced geographically or
numerically in their inequalities.  In the United States, each
geographic section has included both great and small states. In
Canada, the ethnic differences between the two largest and richest
provinces have prevented them from combining against the others.
Swiss federalism has been supported by the existence of groups of
cantons of different size categories and religiolinguistic
backgrounds. Similar distributions exist in every other successful
federal systems.  A major reason for failure of a federal system
has often been a lack of balance among the constituent polities.
Prussia was so dominant in the German federal empire that other
states had little opportunity to provide national leadership, or
even a reasonably strong alternative to the policy  of the king and
government.

It is likely that because of its size and population proper Burma
could be too dominant similar to Prussia. Therefore, it might be
necessary to adopt the division of Burma proper by the 1974
constitution into seven regions.  However, these seven regions
should become autonomous states equal in all aspects with the
ethnic states. They should have their own state constitutions for
their own operation. Some of these divisions are the home of multi-
ethnic groups, for example Irrawaddy (Bama, Mon, Karen), Pegu
(Karen, Mon, Bama, and a few Chin in the Pegu Yomas), Rangoon
(Bama, Karen, Mon, possibly Indian and Chinese also), Sagaing
(Bama, Chin, Naga, Shan), and so on.  It will be necessary to
accomodate the needs and wishes of these different peoples.

Can boundaries between provinces be altered?

Successful federal systems have also been characterized by the
permanence of their internal boundaries. Boundary changes may
occur, but such changes are made only with the consent of the
polities involved and are avoided except in extreme situations.

What kind of legal system should be used?

In a few very important cases, noncentralization is given support
through the constitutionally guaranteed existence of different
systems of law in the constituent polities.  In the US each state's
legal system stems directly from English law, while federal law
occupies only an interstitial position binding the system of the 50
states together. The resulting mixture of laws keeps the
administration of justice substantially noncentralized even in
federal courts. In Canada, the existence of common-law and civil-
law systems side by side has contributed to French-Canadian
cultural survival. Federal systems more often provide for
modification of national legal codes by the subnational governments
to meet special local needs, as in Switzerland.

The Chin delegation emphasized the usage of their traditional laws
in their homeland even though they may be a part of Burma when
answering questions from the Frontier Areas Committee of
Enquiry.

Can the constitution be amended?

In a federal system the constituent polities must have substantial
influence over the formal or informal constitutional amending
process. Since constitutional changes are often made without
constitutional amendment, the position of the constituent polities
must be such that serious changes in the political order can be
made only by the decision of dispersed majorities that reflect the
areal division of powers. In other words both the states and the
nation must have a share in the procedures of constitutional
amendment.  If two levels of government are to remain independent
of each other, neither can take the power from the other; but the
constitution, to be flexible, must be susceptible to change. Every
federation, therefore, has an amending procedure that requires a
measure of consent from both general and state governments. This
does not mean that each regional government must consent, but only
that they participate in the process and that some predetermined
measure of agreement must be obtained from them.  This is important
for popular government as well as for federalism.

Can the polities participate in the national legislature?

In another few very important cases, non-centralization is also
strengthened by giving the constituent polities guaranteed
representation in the national legislature and often by giving them
a guaranteed role in the national political process. The latter is
guaranteed in the written constitution of the United States and
Switzerland. In Canada and Latin America, the constituent polities
have acquired certain powers of participation, and have become part
of the unwritten constitution.

Could there be multi-party system in a federal system?

Perhaps the most important single element in the maintenance of
federal noncentralization is the existence of a noncentralized
party system. Noncentralized parties develop out of the
constitutional arrangements of the federal compact, but once they
have come into existence they tend to be self-perpetuating and to
function as decentralizing forces in their own right.

Should the national and state government be the same institution?

Several devices found in federal systems serve to maintain the
federal principle itself. Two of these are of particular
importance.  The maintenance of federalism requires that the nation
and its constituent polities each have substantially complete
governing institutions of their own, with the right to modify those
institutions unilaterally within the limits set by the compact.
Both separate legislative and separate administrative institutions
are necessary.

What are the responsibilities of the state and national
governments?

The contractual sharing of public responsibilities by all
governments in the system appears to be a central characteristic of
federalism. Sharing, broadly conceived, includes common involvement
in policy making, financing, and administration. Sharing may be
formal or informal; in federal systems, it is usually contractual.
The contract is used as a legal device to enable governments to
engage in joint action while remaining independent entities. Even
where there is no formal arrangement, the spirit of federalism
tends to infuse a sense of contractual obligation.

What makes federalism work?

Federal systems or other systems strongly influenced by federal
principles have been among the most stable and long-lasting of
polities. But the successful operation of federalism requires a
particular kind of political environment, one that is conducive to
popular government and has the requisite traditions of political
cooperation and self-restraint. The use of force to maintain
domestic order is even more inimical to the successful maintenance
of federal patterns of government than to other forms of popular
government. Federal systems are most successful in societies that
have the human resources to fill many public offices competently
and the material resources to afford a measure of economic waste as
part of the price of liberty.

Who finances the governments?

If the governments are to be independent of each other, each must
have not only its own powers but also sufficient financial
resources to sustain itself and support its assigned functions.
Every federation has produced a fundamental disequilibrium between
the distribution of functions and the distribution of financial
resources. The national government often has emerged with greater
resources than it needs to perform its function, while regional
governments have been left with more functions than they can pay
far out of their limited sources.

They resolved the imbalances through:

1.  Functions may be transferred from the states to the central
government. This is most common but encounters serious political
objections.
2.  Tax resources may be transferred from the central government to
the states. This causes the financial inequalities to increase
among the states.
3.  Funds may be handed over by the national government to the
states.

The third device is the most widely used and have produced
elaborate systems of national grants to the states for either
general or specific purposes.  In the US such grants have nearly
always been for designated uses( for example: old-age assistance
and highway construction); furthermore certain conditions are
regularly attached to the grants, such as stipulations that they be
used only for the intended purposes, that the states match them in
a stated proportion, or that certain standards be maintained. In
Canada and Australia greater use is made of general grants, which
are not restricted to specific uses.  Such decisions depend on
political considerations.

What are the experiences of federal systems?

The general trend in all federations has been to enlarge the sphere
of the national government. This has come about through the
ordinary devices of constitutional change: by judicial review or
formal amendments and by expanding the national taxing power. The
basic reason for the shift in emphasis lies in the rise of problems
that can be solved only by the national government. The growth of
a complex and interdependent industrial economy has required
national action on a large scale. The welfare state requires
national support since only the national government has the
national resources. Wars and threats of wars have required national
governments to increase defense spending and defense
establishments.

While the balance of constitutional power in federal systems has no
doubt shifted to the central governments, the real change is not a
shift of powers from state to nation but the increased importance
of matters, for example commerce and defense, over which the
national government has always had control. Shifting of power from
state to the central government could lead to unrest, suspicion and
open rebellion.  A good example is India.  During the time of
Nehru, the national government seldom interfere in the affairs of
the state governments. Under Indra Gandhi the central government
took actions frequently.  We withness separatist movements as a
result.

How would Burma's administration look under federalism?

Primarily Burma has to become a democratic country before any
attempt can be made towards federalism. Federalism can be worked
out only through democratic principles, in other words through
consensus.  For the time being it is irrelevant whether the chief
executive officer is a president or a prime minister.  But we can
be sure that there will be two houses of parliament -  the upper
house represented by two or more members each from each state and
the other house or lower house whose members are elected according
to the population thickness. The nationalities' view of a federal
Burma is as follows.  There will be eight autonomous states:
Arakan, Bama, Chin, Kachin, Karen, Karenni, Mon, and Shan.  There
will be two levels of government: a federal government, and a
government of the states.  Each of these will derive its power
directly from the people. The people therefore possess dual
citizenship.  Each government is constitutionally protected from
undue encroachment or destruction by the other.

So, there will be at least eight states. Burma proper may be
divided into seven autonomous states then there will be fourteen
autonomous states. Whether new states will be created will depend
on negotiations.

The administration of the states will also be through consensus.
At independence, the Burmese government simply adopted the colonial
administration. In a new federal Burma, the commissioner, deputy
commissioners, subdivisional officers, and township officers, who
are the long arm of the central government will have to be
abolished.  In their places will be governors or chief ministers of
each state assuming the political power.  These officers will be
elected by the people of the state, and he or she will preside over
legislative members who are elected by the people of the state.

The state will be divided into districts or subdivisions, which may
be called by the name of the town or district, or in multi-ethnic
states, will be called by their ethnic name. In the place of
colonial deputy commissioners or subdivisional officers, there will
be county commissioners or district head, a person elected by that
district.  He or she will preside over the elected members of the
district legislature.  Similarly in townships, township officers
will have to disappear.  They will be replaced with mayors or
township heads who are again elected by the people of the township.
They will preside over elected members from the township.  The
state, district, county, township, or town organs will function
almost independently of the federal government.  Their
interrelationship (state and federal, state and county, or state
and local) lies in the financial distribution.  Policies on crime,
environmental control, and so on may need coordination.  Detailed
programs have to be worked out by the elected members of the
various organs of the state, county, or localities.

In Canada 45% of the people are of British descent, and speak the
English language, whereas 29% are of French origin and speak
French.  Canada is a bilingual and bicultural federal nation. In
Switzerland the official and national languages are German  65 to
70%,  18% French, 12% Italian, and 1% Romansch. In both countries
federalism works well. In Burma about 60% of the population are
Burmese, and the nationalities of Arakanese, Chin, Kachin, Karen,
Karenni, Mon, and Shan altogether make 40% of the population.
Therefore there will be around eight official languages.  In the
states where there are more than one language these languages will
have to be recognized as official languauges in the state.  For
example in lower Burma, schools will have to teach also Karen,
where Karen speaking people are  more than a certain percentage of
the population.

Also large enough communities may have to be recognized as
autonomous regions with their own local adminstration as member
community of the state.

The federal government will be responsible for  national defense,
monetary policy, foreign affairs, revenue, trade and commerce,
whereas it will have secondary responsibility in transportation and
communication, education, and health care.  Primary
responsibilities of the states will be: education, state revenue,
communication, state commerce, and state law.

In a democratic Burma with a free market system, most of the
developments will be in the hands of entrepreneurs. Regulations of
exploitation of natural resources will be in the hands of the state
governments. Because of the brutality of the Burmese Army, many
people have suggested to abolish the army since there is no foreign
threat.  The people will have to decide whether to have a large
army like today, a much smaller army, or no army at all, similar to
the Swiss system where there is only a reserve army and the people
go for training once every year.  Some nationalities would like to
deny the stationing of the Burma Army in their homelands or states.
The best solution is perhaps the stationing of a federal army in
every state but that their movement in the towns and other areas
need to be restricted.  In the past, soldiers with arms have taken
advantage of their power and had committed atrocities in the areas
where they stationed. This has to be stopped.

Concluding Remarks

Looking at the present condition in Burma, it may seem out of place
to discuss the kind of state Burma will take on in the future.
However, for the ethnic non-Bama, their agreement to join Burma in
1947 was under the condition that they have equality and the right
to self-determination.  For them, a unitary Bama-dominated
government, whether a military dictatorship or not, is the same.
They have fought for the last forty-six years for democracy and
federalism and unless the democratic forces of the Bama and the
nationalities unite together for a common cause, there will be no
unity in their opposition against the SLORC.  A clear perspective
for the future  political system is needed now for unity against
the SLORC; unity can be achieved only through the process of
federalism.

History has taught the people of Burma, many bitter lessons and as
well, the harsh meaning of prolonged suffering.  We must hence
learn from history so as to prevent its repetition.  One important
lesson is that we must have a clear idea of how we manage colorful
diversity -- for no state formation is made of a single colorless
cloth -- and build lasting unity.  That is, Bama leaders especially
must decide what is there to gain from a kind of unity encapsulated
within a colonial arrangement whereby co-dependent and co-
independent constituents are reduced to a colony like status. And
conversely, they must ask what is to be lost, and by whom, in a
federal arrangement composed of units which are equal, co-dependent
and co-independent, operating under a genuinely federal government
and constitution.


Dr. Vum Son
5809 Burgundy street
Capitol Heights, MD 20743
USA
Tel: 301 4990499   Fax 301 808 0872