An Attempt to Build Democracy in Ethnically Diverse Burma

Although one hopes to contribute in the rebuilding of the country, the state is the prime stakeholder in creating a conducive and responsive atmosphere for its citizens.

The cultural diversity found within a country is its primary beauty, many theorists believe. The positive consequence of the 1947 Panglong Agreement was paving the way for the unionization of Burma; the adverse side of the story was distrust and the surge of ethnic armed struggles.

Burma is predominantly a Buddhist country. It is neither an officially pronounced nor decreed theocratic state. Yet, religious restrictions and persecutions are rampant. The country sees little ethnic representation in the chain of military command under the successive military governments since 1962. This may roughly be construed as a covert but sinister campaign by the military leaders, and the issue is decisive for ethnic minorities.

The restoration of democracy and the release of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and other political prisoners are some of the concerns of the international community. But the deeper issues go beyond this high profile political landscape. Ethnic minority groups want to see —not only duties and responsibilities—but also appropriations and constitutional rights. The idealistic concept of the Union of Burma was initially conceived at the Panglong Conference with the notion that there is room for every ethnic nationality in an independent Burma.

The signatories of the Panglong Agreement acknowledged that there was distrust among the different ethnic nationalities. The armed revolutionary campaigns in the aftermath of the Panglong Agreement are still unabated in many areas today. The Burmans may form the bulk of the population in the country, yet each ethnic nationality remains the prime guardian of its own society.

It is an encouraging sign that the United Nations Organization has taken more pragmatic steps through the security council. The historic placement of Burma on the security council’s agenda on September 29, 2006, has had a tremendous effect both inside and outside Burma. It strengthens the morale of activists and politicians.

Now that the democrats are the majority in the US Congress, the confirmation of US Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, the prime architect who pushed Burma’s case at the security council, is unlikely to succeed in January.

However, US foreign policy toward Burma is not expected to change considerably. Meanwhile, constructive democratization of Burma largely rests on the shoulders of two Asian nuclear rivals— China and India. Under Secretary-General for Political Affairs Ibrahim Gambari's visit to Burma in November was proof of the UN's continued engagement.

Any mediation or intervention for a stabilized and burgeoning democracy in Burma must carefully consider Burma’s ethnic diversity. Understanding Burma’s problems together with its multi-ethnic complexity can give the international community a comprehensive strategy. The monopolizing strategy of the SPDC, will not stabilize Burma in the long run.

Nehginpao Kipgen is the general secretary of US-based Kuki International Forum and a researcher on the rise of political conflicts in modern Burma (1947-2004).