Search results

Daw Aung San Suu Kyi has said that peace is the first priority of the National League for Democracy (NLD) when it comes to power in April 2016. Both her remarks at the Union Peace Conference in January and the NLD election manifesto point to ethnicity and federalism being linked. This is a position similar to that taken by the outgoing Thein Sein government and the army. Now that the word "federalism" is accepted as useful in the debate over how to establish an end to Myanmar's persistent civil wars with ethnically designated armed groups, it was hoped that some meeting of minds might take place. But as revealed at the Union Peace Conference, that is yet to have happened. Rather, spokespersons for the ethnic armed groups continue to speak the language of ethnic rights and a federal army, while the government talks about reaching material and administrative agreements and the army insists that there can only be one army. These debates echo the past, going back to the formation of Myanmar in the late 1940s. In order to break the apparently endless debate about federalism, ethnicity, states and divisions in the Union of Myanmar, perhaps a new approach might be considered -- taking federalism a step further to the seventy-four district levels of administration. As the ethnically designated armed groups operate in relatively small and localized areas, a solution that squares the circle between ethnicity and territory might have appeal.

The armed forces in Myanmar politics: a terminating role? -- Foreword -- Executive Summary -- The Army and the Constitution -- Why the Surprise? -- Creating the Conditions for Constitutional Government -- Effecting A Transition -- The Army's Perceptions of Threats to National Consolidation -- A Functioning Legislature and Executive -- Control and Elimination of Ethnic Insurgent Groups -- Assurance of the Financial Capacity for the Army -- Conclusion.

Factionalism has been a dominant factor in the formation and management of political parties in Myanmar. Since the first elections in 1922 until the most recent in 2015, ideological and programmatic differences, as well as personalities and competition for resources, have encouraged the growth of factionalism. (JCSA/GIGA)