[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index ][Thread Index ]

SPECIAL ARTICLE: Article on Federal



Subject: SPECIAL ARTICLE: Article on Federalism:

Article on Federalism:

5 August 1999

Dear All:

The attached article appeared in KNL newsletter. The writers are said to
be
brother and sister. The lady is the President of the KNL.

Hope this article can start some fruitful discussion among us.

MSMD, Ks.



FEATURE
Ethnicity and Federalism: A Case for Burma
by
Saw Kapi and Naw May Oo
Burma, one of the many multi-ethnic countries of the Third World, is
faced
with two fundamental political problems that have kept her away from
lasting
peace and prosperity. The first one is the lacking of democratic
governance
in the country. The second and more deeply-rooted one is half-a-century
long
civil guerrilla war between diverse ethnic armed resistance groups and
the
central government. This paper will briefly discuss the issue of
ethnicity
and fundamental need for a genuine national reconciliation in our
country.
One very essential question Burma needs to answer is quite simple: what
kind
of system is needed to be in place in order to accommodate ethnic
diversity
and maintain unity and freedom at the same time?
An impartial understanding of Burma's ethnic politics is essential for
those
of us who are striving for the country's successful transition to a
peaceful
and democratic society. As such we all would agree that a great extent
of
political sensitivity is required in order to make impartial analysis
and
understand the political problems of Burma. Being merely sympathetic to
the
suffering of ethnic people under the current military regime is by no
means
enough. While the ethnic resistance movements may be viewed by some as
an
unrestrained monster that has often devastated many promising plans for
change, built on sophisticated economic models, the ethnic people
themselves
consider their movements paramount important for their very own
survival. We
will be so wrong to assume that the reality of ethnic and their cultural
diversities would in due course be assimilated or eliminated in the
process of
developmental change. As Ralph R. Premdas points out:
"The evidence against this de-emphasis of the ethno-cultural factor by
the
different ideologies is devastating. From Lebanon in the Middle East to
Guyana on the South American continent, from Northern Ireland to

Azerbaijan in
Europe to Quebec in North America, from the Sudan and South Africa to
Sri
Lanka and Malaysia, the assertion of the ethnic factor has made shambles
of
development objectives and social peace everywhere, on all continents,
in both
underdeveloped and industrialized societies."
Therefore, any strategy for development, both in politics and economic,
regardless of ideological foundation it is based on, must acknowledge
and
incorporate the reality of cultural pluralism and ethnic diversity in
the
country. In light of this reality, federalism has become a very
important
state organization system that can make the best possible accommodation
and
incorporation of ethnic diversity into the country's political
development.
In the meantime, experience shows that the only federations which have
failed
are those which had socialist or communist state systems. Thus, what
Burma
need is to have democratic principles as the basis foundation of
political
system, and federalism as the basic foundation of state organization.
To briefly look at the origin of the word federalism, it is found that
the
word came into English via French from Latin. Foederatus means "bound by
treaty" deriving from foedus: treaty and fidere: to trust."1 The
earliest
recorded use of the word is said to be found in 17th century puritans, a
religious community who spoke of "federal theology" meaning a covenant
between
God and human beings. But by early 18th century, the word had evolved to
include agreements between separate political communities of a
heterogeneous people.
Throughout history, we can see that different countries in the world
have
employed federalism at various levels in terms of agreement between
states,
and power relationship between states and central government. And each
form
of federalism has a different history and socio-political diversity.
India,
for example, has employed a sort of centralized federalism in which the
federal government has significant constitutional power, has been
employed
with a certain success, and it has also maintained considerable level of
democratic principles, freedom and stability. The United States and
Switzerland, although they are different in many specific mechanisms,
have a
similar scheme of very decentralized federalism. History has proved that
different types of federal systems have efficiently accommodated a
number of
multi-ethnic societies with different social and political backgrounds,
except
for the currently defunct Yugoslav and Russian forms of federalism which
had
been operated within a political system of total rule by one party. So
let us
briefly look into the sustainability of federalism for our country,
Burma.
First, federalism can facilitate the demand of "self-determination"2
made by
ethnic nationalities. In other words, federalism can reconcile the
legitimate
impulse of Burma to preserve her territorial integrity and national
unity,
with the legitimate rights of ethnic nationalities to preserve their
culture,
human dignity and political autonomy. In this sense, federalism not only
allows the existence of cultural pluralism, but also gives the

minorities to
preserve and develop themselves politically as well as economically.
Moreover, federalism, depending on the level of decentralization, can
protect
the affairs and decisions of ethnic nationalities, in their organization
and
forms of representation, or in the strategies they adopt to prevent
resources
from being exploited unilaterally by the central government. In short,
federalism encourages peaceful coexistence of diverse ethnic
nationalities
with equality and freedom.
We have seen in the history of Burma that ambitious attempts made by
successive Burman-dominated governments and military regimes to unite
the
country by forcibly assimilating smaller ethnic nationalities into the
melting
pot of Burman [or Burmese] have painfully resulted in the half-a-century
long
civil war. Meanwhile, ethnic nationalities have both repeatedly and
collectively proposed to form a genuine federal union in which both
Burman and
non-Burman ethnic nationalities can peacefully co-exist as equal
partners.3
Of course, federalism must be developed in response to the ancient
question of
how to unite different ethnic nationalities together in order to
effectively
pursue objectives unobtainable otherwise, but without submerging any of
their
own identities. Within the framework of federalism, the new relationship
between ethnic nationalities and the central government will be created
on the
basis of recognition of their rights to self-determination and of the
legal,
political, social, economic, and cultural rights derived therefrom.
Secondly, while the supremacy of the national government over the
federal
units is recognized, in federalism the degree of shared responsibility
for,
and power over, public policy is clearly distinguished. Thus, federalism
can
incorporate the condition of multi-ethnicity in any explication of the
development idea for the country as a whole. It is important to note
here
that for a multi-ethnic country like Burma, most federal units may be
ethnically defined units. Looking at the examples of other multi-ethnic
states, we can clearly see that "policies which win legitimacy and stand
a
chance of implementation must engage and incorporate divergent communal
claims."4 By maintaining clearly distinguished power over public policy,
it
will be possible for each federal unit of ethnic nationalities to
undertake
educational and development policies within their own cultural spheres.
Through education it will be possible to ensure the use and development
of
ethnic national languages, while recognizing their cultural heritage.
For
example, having control over educational policies within their own
states,
each federal unit (or ethnic nationality state) can develop school
curriculums
in their own language reflecting their cultural essence and teach it at
the
state schools. It is important, however, that this emphasis on ethnic
national language and culture in each federal unit or state should not
overshadow or supercede the teaching of the main national language, that
is,
Burmese; nor the study of, and fluency in, one or more internationally
used

languages, e.g., English, French, Chinese, etc., should be neglected.
It is indeed imperative now that Burma, a country that has been ripped
by
ethnic conflicts for more than fifty years, adopts federalism as a
pragmatic
instrument to attain genuine unity among the Burman majority and diverse
ethnic nationalities. That is by no mean to say that the relationship
between
the central government and ethnic nationality states (federal units)
will be
smooth. The dual nature of federal government will always create debates
over
policies that it pursues; however, such debates are necessary as to
check and
balance the power exercised by the central government, and are crucial
in
preventing armed conflicts between states and central government.
In conclusion, it must be stressed that there can be no peace nor
stability in
a multi-ethnic country unless ethnic problems are unequivocally
addressed.
The issues of democracy and human rights can be addressed at the level
of
protection of the rights of the individual citizen, but they must also
be
safeguarded by recognizing the rights of ethnic nationalities. To this
end,
federalism, with its dualistic character of sophisticated balance
between
central and state authorities, seems to be the most suitable framework
yet
developed for structuring mutually respected relations in the ethnically
diverse society of Burma.
This is a slightly revised version of discussion paper presented by Naw
May Oo
at the 51st Annual Meeting of Association for Asian Studies, March
11-14,
1999, in Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

Notes:
1 Stephen Woodard, ôThe Simple Guide to the Federal Idea.ö From
Ventotene,
Federalism and Politics, The Ventotene Papers of the Altiero Spinelli
Institute for Federalist Studies, Ventotene, 1995.
2 The term, ôself-determination,ö is oftentimes defined differently by
different scholars. Here we chose to use the ôsofterö notion of
self-determination as presented by Asbjorn Eide. The term,
ôself-determination,ö should not be seen here as an absolute term but
more as
ôintermediate optionö which allows ethnic nationalities to have greater
control over their own political, social and economic destiny.
3 Both the National Democratic Front (NDF), an umbrella organization of
ethnic
resistance groups, and the Democratic Alliance of Burma (DAB), a larger
alliance organization of both Burman and non-Burman democratic
opposition
forces, have clearly stated their position on the ôestablishment of a
genuine
federal union of Burma based on democracy, equality and
self-determination.ö

4 Ralph R. Premdas, ôEthnicity and Development: The Case of Fiji,ö
United
Nations Research Institute for Social Development discussion paper No.
46,
October 1993.