THE FORCED-COALITION THAT DOESN'T WORK: The case of NLD-Military administration
People are generally at a lost on why
the National League for Democracy (NLD) party that won the 2015 nationwide
election on a landslide couldn't deliver its Election Manifesto of political
change that it has promised to the electorate.
The 2015 Election Manifesto clearly
campaigned for the change of the people's lives, where the NLD promised to
strive for:
·
Ethnic affairs and internal peace;
·
A constitution that ensures that all the people
of our country can live together in tranquility and security.;
·
A system of government that will fairly and
justly defend the people; and
·
The freedom and security to prosper.
Regarding the ethnic affairs
specifically, the Manifesto said the following actions will be taken for ethnic affairs
and internal peace:
·
Work towards a peaceful, prosperous and durable
Union, through solidarity with all ethnic groups.
·
Hold political dialogue based on the Panglong
spirit in order to address the roots of internal armed conflict and enable
people to live in security and tranquility.
·
Strive for the establishment of a genuine federal
democratic union based on the principles of freedom, equal rights and
self-determination.
·
Lay down transparent projects for the balanced
development of all the States and Regions.
·
Work to ensure a fair distribution across the
country of the profits from natural resource extraction, in accordance with the
principles of a federal union.
·
Resolve problems between ethnic
groups through dialogue based on mutual respect.
But as all know, in addition to the
Rohingya spontaneous uprising last October, followed by the drastic oppression
in Arakan State that has received international condemnation and further
tarnished the already nefarious country's image on human rights violations,
peace in ethnic areas has not been forthcoming and instead just the opposite is
happening.
The armed conflict that has been
ongoing ever since the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) military
regime, prior to the quasi-civilian Thein Sein government took over in 2011,
continuing until today under the Aung San Suu Kyi headed civilian NLD
administration. The situation worsened after the 21st Century Peace
Conference (21CPC) was held, initiated by NLD, which was attended by most
ethnic armies four months ago, as the Military or Tatmadaw went on with its
heightened offensives in the Kachin and northern Shan State.
Last year, following the three months
military onslaught on the Kachin Independence Army (KIA) positions in Kachin
State by the Tatmadaw, the KIA, on 20 November last year, launched
counter-offensive in Muse Township, northern Shan State, with the strategy to
lessen the military pressure, together with the Ta'ang National Liberation Army
(TNLA), Myanmar National Democratic Alliance Army (MNDAA) or Ko Kang and Arakan
Army (AA), calling itself the Norther Alliance – Burma (NA-B).
The purpose of the NA-B
counter-offensive was said to be also to project more visibility on the three
Ethnic Armed Organizations' (EAOs) – MNDAA, TNLA and AA - demand for the participation in the peace
process, which the Tatmadaw has decided to exclude and the NLD is powerless to
go against it.
The counter-offensive only angered
the Tatmadaw more, which led to the escalation of offensives against the KIA.
To date, several KIA outposts along the Burma-China border, close to its Laiza
headquarters, were overran by the Tatmadaw at a high financial cost and human
toll as well. Speculations are that the Tatmadaw is determined to recover its
lost of face from the NA-B counter-offensive, which showed its inability to
protect one of its most important economic trading zone, by overrunning KIA
isolated outposts manned by just few soldiers, at an extremely high cost.
The Tatmadaw has overrun seven bases
in total, including two strategic mountain outposts - Laing Paung and Gideon.
Another crucial campaign promise of
constitutional amendment or change by the NLD, which it said would fulfill is
still nowhere in sight and it has been even indicating achieving peace is the
first priority to the amendment task, indicating it has pushed the issue to be
a back-burner, angering the electorates that have voted for the NLD to usher in
a speedy change constitutionally.
It might seem if one looks generally
at the prevailing situation, NLD leadership or the administration is to be
blamed. But a closer observation shows that it is the “systemic problem” or
failure that has made the NLD so impotent to pull through all of its crucial campaign
promises.
Coalition partner and coalition
contract
Although people generally are
inclined to called the present government as being a civilian one, headed by
NLD regime, the reality is, it is a NLD-Military coalition government. And with
it, normally there has to be a “coalition agreement” or “coalition contract”.
But there has been none, whatsoever officially, and so one could safely say
that the situation in Burma is a coalition government, without coalition
contract. In other words, the most essential part or component in running the
administration is missing, which is a glaring handicap to get things done in a
coalition government, so to speak.
“In multiparty democracies, a coalition agreement is an
agreement between the parties that form the cabinet. It codifies the most important
goals and objectives of the cabinet. It is often written by the leaders of the parliamentary parties,” according to the Wikipedia.
As all know the military-drawn constitution of 2008 has allotted the Tatmadaw or Military the three most important ministries of the country, namely, the home, defense and border affairs, apart from being represented by 25% MP seats in all levels of the parliament, without having to go through the election process. Besides, any crucial constitutional amendment would need more than 75% of the parliamentary representative's vote even to sail through the first motion, which means the constitution cannot be amended.
In a normal democratic system of governance, coalition governments are regulated to govern by a so-called "coalition contract", that is to say how basic, controversial issues that concern the government should be implemented through commonly agreed government programmes. And even if through such previously agreed issues or challenges would need adjustment or refining, according to the situation, intensive negotiation has to be considered and conducted between coalition partners to iron out the issues in question. To put it differently, a compromised directive that should be applied for the benefit of the country and the people have to be worked out transparently.
Looking at what has been happening on the ground, especially where the peace process is concerned, the NLD and the Tatmadaw doesn't seem to have any such consultation, much less a "coalition contract".
But as the coalition is a
“forced-coalition”, due to the military-drawn constitution and not a
“voluntary-coalition” as in the real multiparty democratic countries, there is
nothing much the NLD regime could do, to limit the power of the military bloc.
And thus, we are pushed back again into the the arena of “constitutional
crisis” or how to correct the flawed constitution, if this undemocratic way of
doing things is to be addressed.
Because of the military-drawn constitution that seeks to empower the military bloc and control the political process, it could be taken as a non-democratic constitution. And trying to build a democratic society and federal system with an undemocratic constitution is next to impossible. Thus, whenever we start trying to think of formulating a federal and democratic system of governance, we will repeatedly fall back on the amendment or rewriting the military-drafted constitution.
It should be noted that the Military
has repeatedly made known that it is strictly against amendment and is ready
only to make minor, cosmetic changes and not the structural alteration.
Systemic problem
Seen from this perspective, the
military-drawn constitution could be termed as the main source of “systemic problem” or failure the country is facing, as it is
not built to create a democratic society as it has claimed but to control the
democratic and ethnic opposition and maintain its group supremacy stance or
political edge in Burma's political arena.
According to the vocabulary.com: “The
adjective systemic is often used to
describe diseases or disorders; a systemic illness affects your whole body or
an entire system — like your digestive system. Any kind of system can
experience systemic problems. For example, crime is a systemic problem in a
community because it affects everyone from individuals to families, businesses,
and tourism, just to name a few groups harmed by the problem.”
Thus, systemic means
affecting most or all of a system rather than a small portion of the system.
In an essay “The
Necessity of Social Structural Change”, Michelle Maiese wrote: “Since
instituting fundamental social structural changes is extremely difficult, these
structural and systemic problems are often a main cause of protracted,
intractable conflicts. Indeed, any set of institutions and social relationships
that deny identity, social
recognition, autonomy, or preconditions for human development, creates an
environment of conflict. Structural conflict is likely to result whenever
patterned social relationships fail to satisfy basic needs or secure vital
human interests. Any society that aspires to meet the needs of its citizens,
deal with serious social problems and avoid violent conflict must address these
issues.”
The two core problems of ending the
civil war and constitutional amendments couldn't be addressed as there is no
agreed common programmes that would guide the coalition government's policy
implementation and enforcement, which actually should be derived from the
coalition agreement. As such, the NLD-Military coalition administration has
been going about resolving the problems, each in its own way, with its own
individual policy, without coordination and cooperation and sometimes even
contradicting each other.
The cases in points are the issues of
all-inclusiveness of all EAOs and ending the civil war, apart from the big
picture of all-encompassing constitutional reform, even though the NLD has not
explicitly spelled out its position. Further, it seems to be weighing the pros
and cons of having to endorse the Military's position of exclusion, regarding
some of the EAOs that the Military dislike; and its negotiated surrender
position of the non-NCA-signatory EAOs, coupled with forcing them to sign the
agreement, without consideration of any amendment from the non-signatories.
While this is not quite clear, the
fact that Tatmadaw and the NLD never have common agreed position is a very
clear general knowledge, the guidance and implementation of the government on
pressing issues as a whole are non-existence.
Consequently, without the coalition
contract, no control mechanism is available and both parties are just muddling
through with the hope that one would be able to co-opt or out do the other, in
the long run, at the cost of the people's aspirations of social structural change
that they have voted for the NLD to fulfill on their behalves.
Thus the inability of the government
to deliver is anchored in the “systemic problem”, which in another clear
interpretation could be termed as the “constitutional crisis”, as all along have
been identified by the ethnic and NLD camps as the root cause of the country's
woes.
And without altering the weak points
of the systemic failure or problem, that is embedded in the need for social
structural change, the civil war couldn't be stopped, national reconciliation
would be just a pipe dream and democratization process would remain elusive.
Perspective
To wrap up the argument, the NLD
inability to deliver is because of systemic problem. And if it is to overcome
the root cause has to be identified, which we have already pinpointed out as
the need for constitutional amendments or rewriting it altogether. Thus, only
the appropriate amendments and alteration of the military-drawn constitution
will correct the systemic failure and the country would be able to move
forward.
In sum, the NLD regime would be able
to deliver, only if the constitution is amended that is in tune with the
multi-party democratic system of governance, not the anti-democracy, half-baked
hybrid quasi-civilian-military system of administration, that could only beat
around the bush without coming to the root cause of the problem.
Thus gradual withdrawing of the
military from the political scene, Suu Kyi advocated coaxing the military to
give up its illegally held political decision-making power with knitted gloves,
which would take years, are not the solution to the spiraling armed conflict
and socioeconomic woes that need urgent attention.
The solution is to move from present
state of chaotic to goal state of solution, And only then the undoing of
systemic problem or tackling the social structural change could start.
“Bad governance is a form of injustice that must
be corrected. Thus, one very broad type of social structural change is state
reform and democratization. State reform must involve more than just reorganization of the
administrative system or the system of resource allocation. These social
structural changes should contribute to the establishment of participatory nation-building processes by fostering democratic development, nonviolent
and just dispute resolution systems,
the participation of the population, and rule of law,” wrote Michelle Maiese.
Her pointing out or underlining of the
deep-sitting structural change is worth emphasizing. She wrote: “Constitutional
reform can help political systems and the institutions within them to evolve in
response to demands that reflect human needs. In the South African case, for
example, systemic change came in the form of major constitutional reform and
reallocations of power. The abandonment of apartheid is a prime example of
major social structural change.”
Finally, taking cue from the South African
experience, we should now deeply consider, whether we would like to conduct our
peace process and structural change in a leisurely and non-committed way by
beating around the bush, as is now the case, or take a bold, drastic and
radical move by tackling the systemic problem at its roots.
Tags: Opinion
