Why Burmese army continue fighting when governments and ethnic armed groups are working for nationwide ceasefire?

I think there could be a couple reasons.  The first one is that they try to control the KIA/KIO and TNLA areas as much as they can before signing the nationwide ceasefire. If they can control more areas, they own them by the time signing the cease-fire. I think they will fight till the day of signing nationwide cease-fire. In this case, government and army have strategies to control ethnic areas, especially military and economic strategic areas as much as they can before signing nationwide cease-fire.

The second reason might be that government could not control the army.  The Burma Army can do whatever it wants without government consents or approvals. In this case government and army have different objectives on peace process in Burma. The army may continue fighting after signing nationwide cease-fire.

The second reason is less likely because if government cannot control its army, it would not work hard for signing nationwide cease-fire. If there is still fighting after nationwide cease-fire agreement is signed, the government will lose its face to international community. The government doesn't want this happen since it tries to show international community that peace process in Burma is on track and working.

Posted by Pon Nya Mon

While the government sends in its teachers, business people and healthcare providers to the conflict zones in ethnic areas, one has to remember that they do this without discussing with the ethnic 0rganizations such as KNU, KNPP, NMSP, etc.  Sometimes, even without talking to civil society organizations that have been operating in the area for a long time.  There was a total disregard of ethnic education systems, at times.  On the one hand, it looks good that the government is trying to provide teachers for schools in Karen state; on the other hand, the real intent is to expand government’s reach and administration into conflict zone, because they did not take existing ethnic education system into consideration.   So, the government's approach is a double-edged sword. 

The government appears to be utilizing some of its initiatives in education sector as tools to expand their power and rule in Karen or KNU controlled area.  The government in its own interest sees education as a tool of politics.  But, if I am not wrong, most ethnic armed organizations don't look at education that way.  Most of them think that they can negotiate political matters first, and then talk about economics, education and other matters later. The current government knows that this education reform is related to political reform.  Without political reform, it won't be easy to make changes to or reform the education sector either.   There are countries that reformed their education while going through their political reform. But in Burma, it is not a negotiated reform initiative. It is a one-sided reform. The government is trying to initiate a limited reform on its own term under their tight control, without consultation from the people or grassroots community, or the opposition.   Even for education sector, it is important to have a negotiated, participatory reform process.  Before making decision on direction of reform, the government needs to discuss with all stakeholders, take suggestion from ethnic nationalities, and pay attention to people’s needs. 

It appears now that the Ministry of Education and its international partners are conducting their education sector review without proper consultation with ethnic education entities.   They don't seem to know how many schools, teachers and students ethnic education entities have in their areas.  It seems they are coming to the ethnic groups and ask for their participation only after they have decided on the direction they will take.  I have made this statement in my interview with Karen Teachers' Working Group (KTWG): "We do not want the government to give us their options. We want to come up with possible options together in a participatory process. It means we want to participate in discussion and negotiate with the government to determine options that are available to us. It is fundamentally flawed if they come to give us with options we have after they talked about these issues on their own. We do not want to be given their options; we want to decide it on our own and come up with options for ourselves. We want to negotiate with the government on these options.  Only then the reform process will be supported by the people and good for the entire country and all ethnicities."

Posted by:  Saw Kapi

BY PON NYA MON

The amendment of Burma’s Constitution recently has become a hot issue yet again. The lower house of Burma’s parliament has approved the formation of a committee that will review the 2008 Constitution to make necessary amendments. The opposition groups have pointed out that changes are needed in the Constitution in order to form a genuine federal  union to resolve long-standing ethnic and political conflicts in the country.

The government agrees changes need to happen, but expressed a totally different perspective on what changes they should be. They, with aligned political parties, said any changes must be made in Parliament, by Parliament. On the contrary, opposition groups like United Nationalities Federal Council (UNFC) and United Nationalities Alliance (UNA) rejected the 2008 Constitution, proposing that the country needs an entire new one. They say that its present form is undemocratic; thus trying to amend within its rigid framework would be illogical.

Those in favor of the Constitution, like the Myanmar Peace Center, have criticized these notions claiming that rewriting it is both impractical and would lead to a confrontation. However, there  haven’t been real discussions on the Constitution’s flaws or how it could be amended when Parliament in itself is essentially undemocratic. It is of my opinion that we must not fail to acknowledge that by forcing the opposition groups to accept an undemocratic constitution will also lead to a confrontation.

Opposition parties like the National League for Democracy (NLD) have admitted the problematic nature of amending the 2008 Constitution in a flawed parliament. Speaking at the World Economic Forum in Naypyidaw, NLD leader DawAung San SuuKyi called the 2008 Constitution “the world’s most difficult Constitution to amend”.

According to the Constitution, 75-percent of votes in the national parliament and 50-percent at a national referendum would be required to amend it. Passing a proposed amendment through the national referendum may not be so difficult, but for it to pass through Parliament, if it is not favored by the military would be next to impossible. Most of the seats are guaranteed to the military-backed Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP) and non-elected military representatives. Together they hold 75-percent of the parliamentary seats. Essentially Parliament, in itself, is not democratic and any proposed amendments still must be given the green light by the military.

Therefore, it makes sense to first change the constitutional amending procedures before constitutional amendments are attempted. It should only be attempted when a fair and democratic process has been implemented. Several flaws within the 2008 Constitution could be improved once the clause of Constitution amending procedure is changed.

For example, the clause could be changed so that any constitutional amendment requires only 51-percent of the votes and 75-percent during a national referendum instead of the current structure. This procedural change may not help opposition groups to pass a constitutional amendment under the current parliamentary term, but it if they secure seats in 2015 elections, these changes will give them more power to amend the Constitution within Parliament. This would allow more opportunity to reshape the Constitution without having to scrap it.

Another alternative to re-writing a new constitution would be to amend the Constitution outside of Parliament in a democratic setting. The Second Pin Long Conference that promises to bring representatives from the USDP ruling party and military together with democratic forces and ethnic nationalities has the potential to serve this purpose. A constitution amendment at such a national convention will be then followed by a national referendum. This approach would be more inclusive and democratic since all political forces can participate in the process.

Regardless of whether changes happen within, or outside of parliamentary proceedings it will only be successful if the government is willing. Already the government amended the election law that allowed the NLD to participate in 2012 by-election. Since the USDP and military together control over 75-percent of the parliamentary seats, no other political party could block this amendment.

If the government is sincere in their efforts to achieve peace and national reconciliation in Burma, it alone wields the power to change the Constitution without delay. Amending it without their support is next to impossible. Rewriting a new constitution would be a better and more attainable solution to peace and prosperity in the country.

This article originally appeared on BNI online.

 Burma multi-party political landscape is one of the most diverse in the world.  In the last general elections, there were more than 20 political parties in the race, and currently more than 10 political parties have their representatives in the national parliament. Democratically speaking-notwithstanding difference in resources endowment and organization effectiveness-the electoral landscape in Burma looks relatively inclusive and promising as citizens have more choices to choose their preferred candidates when they go to the polls.

Looking at them on the surface, Burma seems to offer more options than the U.S because the latter offers only two political parties for 330 million citizens while the former has more than 20 parties for just 60 million people.  Out of the 20 or so political parties in Burma, more than half of them are ethnic-based parties.   One would assume that ethnic parties would have many seats in the parliament because they are the most numerous in term of numbers. But unfortunately this is not the case.

Currently only about 10 percent of the total national parliamentary seats belong to ethnic-based parties although ethnic groups represent almost forty percent of Burma’s population. Additionally, many ethnic political parties exist in name only and have no representatives at the national level. A major problem that lies at the heart of this inadequate representation for ethnic political parties in the national parliament is the majority or winner-take-all electoral system.

Burma’s current electoral system tends to favor mainstream and established political parties such as USDP or NLD because in a winner-take-all system the party with the most votes, regardless of percentage they receive, win the seat. This means that ethnic parties – which tend to be smaller and weaker in term of funding and resources – will end up not winning seats even if they manage to secure many votes but not enough to claim the majority. For example, an ethnic party in Karen or Shan States could receive a substantial amount of votes in many constituencies it contests but still end up not winning any seats if it fails to secure a majority.  As a result, they are less likely to have any representation in parliament in spite of their relative support in some parts of the country. To remedy this disparity and make the system fairer, Proportional Representation System or a mixture of some sort would be a favorable choice for smaller and ethnic political parties.

Under a Proportional Representation (or PR) system, parties are allocated seats proportional to percentage of votes they receive in the elections regardless of a majority or not. In this respect, ethnic political parties will have more chance of gaining seats and receiving equal share of representation in the parliament. In the 2010 general elections, it is estimated that many ethnic political parties have won a substantial number of votes in areas where they contested but not enough majority to win the seat. As a consequent, many of them have to sit outside the parliament.

On the other hand, some of the ethnic parties that secure seats in the national parliament are also underrepresented because they garnered substantial support but not enough votes to claim the majority in many constituencies they contested. Given that the National League for Democracy is certain to compete in 2015 general elections, the race will be a lot more competitive and ethnic parties will find it a lot harder to compete than the previous elections.  As democratic and reform process continue to evolve, to level the playing field and improve the chance of ethnic parties gaining more seats and having fairer representation in the parliament, it’s imperative that Burma explores, and if possible, adopts an electoral system that awards seats according percentage of votes a party receive.

Posted by Greh Moo

What a great news!  The four Karen political parties are preparing to merge.  This news would encourage other ethnic political parties to merge into one. Two Mon political parties have been trying to merge into one for almost a year, but have not yet succeeded. If Karen political parties will be able to merge, then Mon parties need to learn from this process too. Upcoming 2015 elections will be different from 2010 elections because NLD will be contesting the elections this time.  There will be great challenges for ethnic political parties to win seats in their areas if they are divided into different political parties.  For example, in constituency A, Mon political party A won 60% of votes in 2010 election, and the party won the seat. But now there are two Mon political parties will contest in upcoming election. These 60% of voters in Constituency A will be shared by two parties--let's say 30% each and assuming that NLD will win the rest of the vote (40%). Mon political parties will no longer be a majority in that constituency and both of them will lose the seat. This is just an example of what could happen if Mon political parties or other ethnic political parties kept dividing into two or three political parties. It is not too late for Mon or other ethnic political parties to merge into one or form a more powerful alliance. If not, they must have better strategy to win seats in their areas in 2015 election.

Posted by Pon Nya Mon

Between DBN and TTD villages, there is a little river called Weh Loh.  So, the village situated on the river bank is called Weh Loh village.  Weh Loh had never known a school, until recently. Even though the villagers farmed the land, the war had forced out any coordinated  educational effort.  Weh Loh’s children travelled to neighboring  villages for their lessons or went without.  More often than not, they  went without.
 
In recent years, a KNLA commander was moved  by the plight of Weh Loh: while children in peaceful democracies all  over the world spent the daylight in classrooms, the children of Weh Loh were at home, playing in the street, or working the fields alongside  their parents.   And so, he undertook a coordinated effort with village  elders to establish a school.  His efforts were successful.  

Today, the School at Weh Loh provides basic education to the future leaders of Weh Loh.  The children of Weh Loh now have reading, writing, and spelling courses – in three languages: Karen, English, and Burmese.  And
despite the constant presence of war—of depleted rations, ambushes, and threats of violence, the School boasts three teachers and thirty  students this year, from kindergarten through fourth standard. With  these seeds of educational growth, the School’s founders hope that the  children of Weh Loh will experience the promise of a better life.
 
Until recently, I only knew the school by reputation.  Weh Loh is bordered on all sides by the Dictatorship’s military battalions, always at attention.   But, on my way home this year, I unexpectedly stumbled upon the village of Weh Loh. The School’s founders built the school on a  track of land adjacent to the village entrance, a testament to strength  in the face of the most oppressive adversity.  I could hear it before I  saw it: the voices of children singing, reading, and reciting. 
 
What I see through the School at Weh Loh is an organically home-grown effort for development in the war zone.  No Norwegian Initiative is needed.  Weh Loh obviously does not seek attention of the international  community.  There is no complaint as to how they have been disregarded  by the caring world in the face of extreme misfortune – war.  They may  not be able to get very far with their humble effort.  But, theirs is a  genuine effort, an authentic little step to what they understand as national development through education for children.
 
Naw May Oo
July 2012

There is a huge lack of human resource in the country, and there are those who want to fill the gap.  But there is no existing legal mechanism that allows the Burma-natives, who have been in foreign country for a long, long time, to return and stay in the country for a good amount of time to make a difference.  Reports have been floated before that the Burmese government is thinking about granting permanent resident status to expatriates who are former citizens of Burma.  But, nothing concrete has yet developed.

In the meantime, whether the country can move onto development phase or not depends largely on how durable the ceasefire agreements are between the government and ethnic armed forces.  It seems premature to initiate development projects in ethnic areas, when there is no clear structure or boundary of authority and responsibility between the government and ethnic organizations.  And, it is uncertain if the ceasefire will turn into political negotiation process.  We all know that ceasefire is only a temporary step before political dialogues towards lasting political solution.

Though this may be the path less traveled by, we believe that empowering communities, especially different ethnic communities in conflict areas, is very important.  After all, the ethnic community themselves will have to make their own determination as to what kind of development they want and how they can achieve their goal of self-determination.

Posted by SI

Before 2015 elections, the government of Burma/Myanmar plans to collect national population census in 2014.  It will be the first census to be collected in 30 years.  Data collected from this census will play a critical role in Burma’s future politics and will likely impact the lives of citizens in many ways.  It is important we provide necessary information to the rural population so that they can participate properly and represent themselves accurately in the Census, so that that the government can accurately count population by ethnicity.   In the future, beyond 2015 in particular, the government will likely be forced to measure funding levels for programs and improvements at every level of societal living based on data collected from this Census.

Government funding for education, for example, may be distributed by population, which is measured by the Census.  Which ethnic language is to be taught at which school will also be determined by ethnic population count.  Many other public policy determinations will be made and debated based on the outcome of 2014 Census.   It is about time political parties and civil society organizations in Burma begin to educate the public and prepare for holding the government accountable for the accurate count of the country’s population. 

Posted by SI