Constitution Remains Key to Solving Ethnic Quagmire

As was highlighted at the UNFC conference, Naypyidaw's decision to amend the Constitution to appease Aung San Suu Kyi and to encourage her National League for Democracy (NLD ) to register, proves that a top-down decision to make changes can be implemented. But this process was technically done by vote in Parliament and required just a few minor changes that few people would object to.

The kind of amendments that would likely be needed to appease all of the ethnic armed groups, would certainly not be accepted by the entire legislature and could in fact further widen political divides even among the pro-democrats.

According to David Taw, whose  KNU is a member of the UNFC, “I can’t say I agree 100 percent with the UNFC’s calls for Panglong but I agree in principle. Panglong was quite a long time ago and we were under colonial rule. People wanted to get independence and the spirit was very high, so people were willing to sign very easily … At that time, everybody felt like they were suppressed. But now, if we call a big meeting like this then some are benefiting from this system so they won’t agree.

“ I think [changing the Constitution outside the Parliament] will be difficult. Firstly, because all democratic countries change their Constitution in the Parliament and secondly, because the arrangement of the Constitution was done by the regime, so they drew it up to protect them [in a way that] favors them … My honest view is that even if there is a good Constitution for the country, if the government does not act on the Constitution, then it is just paper.

“But at least if the Constitution is there, we can apply pressure, because they will respect the opposition's voice in the Parliament … If we are only discrediting the government and calling for changes, they won't listen. We need to develop some kind of mechanism that can work on how to change the Constitution.”

David Taw did agree, however, that multilateral discussions would be a crucial step to developing a strategy and that this could lead to a settlement in Parliament. “We need a mechanism that can work on how to change the Constitution,” he added. “I think we better sit down together and then work out a strategy that can be useful for everybody—all the ethnic opposition groups and the government… If we can get the government to sign [an agreement] then they can take it to their Parliament.”

According to anonymous government sources, such talks were agreed to in principle by Naypyidaw in their February ceasefire agreement with the New Mon State Party (NMSP), and will likely take place this year. According to Nai Hong Sar of the NMSP, who spoke at the UNFC conference, “we demanded a nationwide conference, a political dialogue, with all leaders of all mainstream ethnic opposition groups to have substantive political dialogue with the goal of solving our crisis in Burma.

“We also made the demand that such talks have witnesses from the international community. Our plan is to talk to the government and the commander-in-chief to make a mutual agreement between ourselves and them.”

“I am optimistic,” said David Taw. “While the government is changing we'd better use this opportunity because if we don't then we'll isolate ourselves. We have nothing to lose … I think there might be some changes [before 2015]. I have confidence in Aung San Suu Kyi and I think that her voice will be heard in the Parliament. I got some inside info that most MPs are not like before and they don't want to go back to military rule so no matter what they will support her.

“I think if we can approach the NLD and other parties who can influence the Parliament, I think the Constitution will change. Not everything, but minor things that don't hurt the generals. I think they will allow it … [The key things to change] are trade and investment … health and education. If they give power to the local governments, people will think more wisely about how the people will fit in [to the plans].

The road ahead looks tough and unpredictable, but from most points of view, progress is being made and the government is behaving differently than ever before. The most notable changes have been in Naypyidaw's tone and we are yet to see if comprehensive action will follow with regard to the ethnic conflict.

However, analysis of the new administration generally and the path it is trying to take does provide a rationale for optimism. It is well aware of the importance of stabilizing the border regions and bringing an end to national discord, both of which are goals that rely on finding a lasting solution to conflict. While the government’s current plan remains starkly at odds with the aims of the opposition, it seems to have the will for change and multilateral talks could begin to close the gap in understanding.

Kim Jolliffe is an independent research, analysis and training consultant focusing on conflict, politics and humanitarian issues in Burma.