A Brief Colonial History Of Ceylon(SriLanka)
Sri Lanka: One Island Two Nations
A Brief Colonial History Of Ceylon(SriLanka)
Sri Lanka: One Island Two Nations
(Full Story)
Search This Blog
Back to 500BC.
==========================
Thiranjala Weerasinghe sj.- One Island Two Nations
?????????????????????????????????????????????????Friday, March 15, 2019
As 2020 polls loom, calls renew for constitutional change in Burma
Over the past three years, the NLD government has been busy dealing with a wide range of governance issues. The peace process has
been particularly difficult and hit a number of obstacles. It is
unlikely that it will be able to show progress in this area.
The NLD is instead turning to amending the military-enacted constitution
to stimulate electoral momentum. Reforms could potentially affect the
military’s role in governance, and so the move is mired in controversy.
To begin with, the NLD raised this legislative motion on the date of the
commemoration of U Ko Ni — a lawyer and former advisor to the NLD — who
was assassinated on Jan 26, 2017. Ko Ni was the country’s most vocal advocate for constitutional reform. His death has had a chilling effect on efforts to amend the Constitution.
When the NLD proposed forming a committee to amend the Constitution in
the national legislature, the military claimed that they had failed to
follow the correct procedure.
All of the military members of parliament refused to vote on
the motion as a show of defiance. They have done this on a handful of
other occasions, such as when the NLD proposed creating the Office of
State Counsellor specifically for Aung San Suu Kyi. The military has
also suggested they may not participate in the legislative committee.
Then in early February a group of pro-military protestors held a
demonstration in downtown Yangon. The protestors waved two flags — the
national flag and a blue flag with a white dove, a symbol of peace. The
rally used a mixture of nationalist pride and appeals to peace to
suggest that the Constitution should not be changed.
The military’s position has been challenged with a large counter-rally by pro-democratic actors calling for constitutional change.
After the legislature went ahead and approved the committee, the military warned that the ‘essence’ of the Constitution must not be changed.
So, what is at the core of the Constitution? Why is it so contested?
There are three essential elements as designed by the military.
First, the military has a constitutional role as the leading body in
national governance. This means that the military sits in the
legislature and military appointees hold some high-level ministerial
positions. The military also exercises informal influence over the
government administration and the judiciary.
The military’s role in ‘national politics’ is said to be distinct from
its role in ‘party politics’. This distinction means that the military
claims to independently oversee the political system though does not
technically have its own political party. The Constitution facilitates
the military’s monopoly on power.
Second, the Constitution is animated by an ideology developed during the
period of direct military rule (post-1988). Known as ‘Our Three Main
National Causes’, this ideology supports the role of the military in
governance.
This ideology has three elements: non-disintegration of the Union,
non-disintegration of national solidarity, and the perpetuation of
sovereignty.
The emphasis on non-disintegration represents the rejection and denial
of the secessionist and separatist demands of ethnic groups.
The non-disintegration of national solidarity is based on a fixed number of official ‘national races’ and the idea that they must not challenge Burman privilege.
The reference to sovereignty relates not so much to fears of external
interference, but rather to fears of internal disorder and conflict with
ethnic armed organisations. The Constitution demands loyalty to these
three principles.
The third key element in the Constitution organises the state around the
idea of coercive centralism. Coercive centralism describes the
relationship between the branches of government and between the Union
and the sub-national units. There is a strong culture of coercive
cooperation and collaboration among the institutions of the state. The
courts cannot act effectively as a check on the power of the executive
or legislature and the military remains entirely unaccountable.
These three elements are at the core of the Constitution and form the
basis of the ‘military-state’ in Burma — the co-existence of military
and civilian authorities.
These three principles link to and reinforce the role of the military in
leading the country, silencing secessionist claims and promoting an
exclusive idea of national races. These principles are repeated
consistently and regularly throughout the Constitution.
The NLD fundamentally disagrees with the leading role of the military in
governance and its ideology, as well as the structural advantages the
Constitution grants to the military.
But this move to form a committee is unlikely to lead to major changes
to the essence of the Constitution. It is instead the NLD’s chance to
put on the record its demands for constitutional change, a mandate they
will no doubt pick up again if they are successful in the 2020
elections.
Melissa Crouch is Associate Professor at the University of New South Wales and is the author of The Constitution of Myanmar: A Contextual Analysis. This article has been republished from East Asia Forum under a Creative Commons license.