Ashley South has put together an interesting article on the position of ethnic minorities in any constitutional future for Burma.
He argues:
Regarding the referendum – calls to boycott the process, or vote ‘No’, are understandable. However, the referendum seems to represents a ‘win-win’ situation for the military government: if the constitution is rejected, presumably this will mean many more years of military rule, while the generals take their time before presenting new proposals.
Regarding any future election – whatever its deficiencies, this will probably confer at least a degree of legitimacy upon those elected. Ethnic nationality politicians and communities are therefore likely to be faced with a dilemma, regarding whether and how to participate in elections organized by the SPDC…While it may be argued that Burma’s armed ethnic groups have little to gain from participating in future elections, something is perhaps better than nothing. A continuation of the present armed stand-off mostly benefits the military government, at a time when the regime is undergoing a generational change, and seems to be establishing the ground rules for politics in Burma over the coming decade.
The full article, derived from South’s forthcoming book Ethnic Politics in Burma: States of Conflict, is well worth a read.
4 responses so far ↓
1 aiontay // Mar 22, 2008 at 10:36 am
I really like Ashley South’s work, but I wish he had fleshed this argument out more (perhaps he does in the book). I think he looks at this too much from the standpoint of the armed ethnic groups, which are in fact a small subset of the ethnic minorities. I’d say that it is in the interest of the armed ethnic groups to participate in the process, it is the unarmed elements of the ethnic minorities where there are questions.
He writes “the continuation of human and civil-political rights abuses have led many to criticise these agreements. Such complaints have weakened the standing of most ceasefire groups, at least in some sectors of the community. ” In fact it isn’t just the continuation of human and civil rights abuse that cause problems for the ceasefire groups, it is the fact that in the wake of the ceasefires they’ve committed the same abuses. I remember the villagers in one Kachin village in the Shan state being absolutely livid that one of the Kachin ceasefire groups had ordered them to provide free labor (forced labor) on a road on Christmas Day. They said they would have understood it from the Burmese military, but they couldn’t understand how the “Christian” Kachin ceasefire group could order such a thing. It certainly wasn’t a win-win situation for them, and I doubt participation by the ceasefire group in the referendum is going to change that.
2 Wangbu // Mar 22, 2008 at 10:44 pm
Nice work. Certainly the power of the masses will reach its zenith and that a new constitution in favor of the majority will govern Burma. However, my concern is that how sure are we that it will not end up as another wrong concept of democracy to be abuse my the minor aristocracy.
3 Ashley // Mar 23, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Thanks for your comments Aiontay. My work is a bit elite-centered. In the book, I do look at abusive practices and mis-governance on the part of ceassfire groups, and especially some of the smaller, fragmentary militias.
4 aiontay // Mar 23, 2008 at 9:56 pm
Ashley,
I’d also be curious as to how you see this playing out with regard to the ethnic minority NGOs.
Leave a Comment
Please note: New Mandala encourages vigorous debate. However, for the moment we will only be publishing high-quality comments that make original contributions to discussion. There will, of course, still be space for pithy, humorous, eccentric and cheeky input. Short and sweet will usually trump long and involved. Repetitive ranting, unimaginative point-scoring and idle abuse will not be entertained. Comments which carry a real name are also more likely to be approved. Thank you for your ongoing interest and contributions.