I used to be a proponent for a United States of Burma, made up of 8 constituent states, including a Burma state.

That was until I came across a paper, published in 2002, Multi-Nationalism, Democracy and “Asymmetrical Federalism” written by Alfred Stepan and later attended a workshop led by the late Dr.Chao Tzang Yawnghwe (1939-2004) the Shans’ foremost scholar and fighter, who edited it.

The idea of 8 states began with the non-Burman ethnic conference in Taunggyi, 8-16 January 1961, that issued a 5 point call:

• Creation of a Burma state
• Equal powers to both houses of parliament
• Equal number of representation in the Upper House
• All powers except for the following subjects should be vested in the states: foreign relations; union defense; union finance; coinage and currency; post and telegraph; railway, airway and waterway communications; union judiciary; and seaport customs
• Equitable division of the union revenue

Interestingly it should be added that long before the demands were made, the conference, on the second day, passed the following objectives, according to History of the Shan State: From its origins to 1962 by Sai Aung Tun:

• The perpetuation of the Union
• The right of self determination for the states
• The promotion of friendly relationship among the Union nationalities
• The protection of human rights
• The development of all ethnic minorities in each state
• The making of concerted efforts in dealing with matters relating the states

Not surprisingly, some ultra-nationalist politicians had reacted strongly to the first point of the call. “This is an attempt by the minorities to keep the Burman majority to keep the Burman majority intimidated,” one of the well-known Burmese leaders was reported as saying at that time.

In fact, I would like to think that equating federalism as secession by the Burmese military that took the reins of the country later was just a smokescreen for not wanting to lower the status of Burma proper from a mother state to an entity that is equal in station to others. (Which reminds me of a friend, who was sort of a henpecked husband, when asked if he agreed with women’s equality to men, replied, “I do, but I’m not sure if my wife does.”)

According to Stepan, non-Burmans should be more flexible and realistic about the 14 states proposal, due to three factors:

• Huge population imbalance between Burmans and non-Burmans (75:25, but many think 60:40 is a more realistic ratio)
• The power balance (or imbalance) between the Burmans and non Burmans plus the military’s unyielding position against 8 states

“Any (8 state) proposal will increase the will and unity of the military to oppose a transition,” he says. “It is certain to stiffen the military’s resolve to retain power.”

• While symmetrical federalism (for largely mono-national countries) works in USA, Australia, Germany, Austria and Brazil, asymmetrical federalism is doing fine in multi-national countries like Spain, India, Belgium and Canada. In fact, a study visit to the latter countries would be more useful for Burma then one to the former, he advises.

So what is asymmetrical federalism? The answer: India has 28 states, most of them speaking English and Hindi, which is the lingua franca in 6 states. Still, that has not prompted the non-Hindi states to demand that the 6 form a single state.
The result: In nationwide surveys, more than 85% of those polled say that they are “proud” or “very proud” of India.

That is asymmetrical federalism.

Chao Tzang Yawnghwe, who told me a few years before his death, “I have no time to bullshit”, was more clear-cut on the subject:

• What we call the Burman state is actually multi-ethnic; there are Shans in Sagaing, Karens in Irrawaddy, for instance, and Rangoon is multi-national
• We will only help to make the Burmans too strong if we want to keep it as a single state; on the other hand, many of them may even choose to join us (the non-Burman states) given a chance, if they are separate

Actually, he said more. But, as the wise does not need time-consuming explanations, I think I have said enough.

All in all, said Chao Tzang, a 7 Burman states will work better for the non-Burmans – and for all Burmans as well – than a single Burman state.

Before I wind up, I remember Stepan telling us the Spanish military, though at first opposed to federalism, eventually accepted the asymmetrical federalism “as a necessary instrument for maintaining the integrity of the Spanish state.”

Let us hope the ten party alliance (5 of them Burman) that had taken the bold decision on 10 October to submit a unified proposal to the parliament for a union comprising 14 states is successful.

Because if it isn’t, it is certain we may be witnessing again the resumption of an all-out war soon, despite the ceasefire agreements that have been reached with 13 of the armed movements. (One thing I don’t understand is why the President keeps saying his government has signed ceasefire pacts with 10 groups. Which 3 groups is he not taking in to account?)

If federalism, and particularly the asymmetrical federalism, is not going to convince the Burmans, it is highly likely it is going to deconvince the non-Burmans soon.