Earlier this month the Burmese military
junta, the State Peace and Development
Council (SPDC), reconvened their much-criticised National Convention (NC). The National Convention is responsible for drafting principles that will form the basis of the new constitution for Burma, which will be put to the people in a referendum at an undetermined time in the future. However the process has received much criticism from the Burmese people, ethnic groups, human rights and pro-democracy activists and the international community. There are very real concerns that the process is flawed and will only further ingrain the military into power, rather than returning the country to democracy.
The NC was first introduced in 1990 by the military as a consolation prize for the National League for Democracy and the other political parties than won parliamentary seats in the election. Earlier that year SLORC (the SPDC’s predecessor) agreed to hold free elections to form parliament and lost. Rather than granting the winners, who won by a landslide, the opportunity to form government, SLORC claimed that the elections were for representatives at the National Convention who were charged with drafting the country’s constitution. SLORC said that after the completion of the NC and the drafting of the constitution, they would hold another set of elections to select members of parliament.
However, the framework provided by the military for drafting the constitution at the National Convention assured the consolidation of power for the Tatmadaw (the Burmese army). In October 2002, before the first sitting of the NC, SLORC laid down six objectives that provided the framework for the constitution. The first five objectives were commendable and related to nation-building and democracy among other things. But the sixth objective, “the Tatmadaw to be able to participate in the national political leadership role of the State”,1 put the final nail in the coffin for a free and democratic Burma as it guarantees the military a leading role in all future governments.
...the sixth objective...put the final nail in the coffin for a free and democratic Burma...
In 1993 the first sitting of the National Convention began, and since then the process has become more flawed as each session occurs. Now in July 2007 (14 years later) there is still no timeline to finish the National Convention or to hold “free and democratic” elections.
It must be noted that while in 1990 the National Convention was charged with drafting the new constitution, it is no longer the case. Instead, the National Convention, in its current format, will provide basic principles, which will then be used as the starting point for drafting the constitution by a body appointed by the military.
However open discussion of these principles has been banned. Proposals from delegates at the National Convention have to be submitted in advance, and delegates are only allowed to speak from pre-approved papers. The junta has rejected proposals from ethnic groups on a number of separate occasions, leaving delegates dissatisfied at the process and questioning the value of the national convention. Additionally, requests to hold discussions about the role the military will take in politics have been refused.
Furthermore delegates and the general public are banned from debating and expressing ideas about the national convention in public. This ban has been criminalized under Order 5/96, the Law Protecting the Peaceful and Systematic Transfer of State Responsibility and the Successful Performance of the Functions of the National Convention against Disturbances and Opposition. This law carries a penalty of up to 20 years in prison.2
And this is not just an ideal threat. Leaders of opposition groups have been threatened with Order 5/96 to stem off criticism. The SPDC has also sentenced six students3 and 10 Shan political leaders4 under order 5/96 for distributing leaflets that were critical of the National Convention and for discussing the NC respectively. The lightest sentence that any member of the two groups received was seven years, and one of the Shan political leaders has already died in prison.
Moreover, while open debate has been effectively stifled, the SPDC has handpicked most delegates. The majority of participants in the past session have been members of the SPDC backed Union Solidarity and Development Association (USDA). Members of the USDA support the military, and consequently in the NC they do not represent the views of the population. Additionally, the support that the SPDC gains from USDA members for their basic principles presents a distorted picture of popular support from the general public.
Many groups have been excluded from the convention and others have decided to boycott the event or down graded their participation from delegate to observer status. This is especially true for pro-democracy political parties and ethnic opposition groups. One must question, without the participation from the ethnic groups or the pro-democracy political parties, how can the principles that are suppose to be shaping Burma’s constitution be reflective of the people’s wishes?
Further exacerbating the situation is the fact that only 1.11 per cent of delegates at this sitting of the National Convention are Member of Parliament elects (the title given the people who won seats in the 1990 elections). This is a significant decrease from 1993 when 14 per cent of delegates were MP-elects. To further highlight this issue, nine pro-democracy parties representing over 90 per cent of the parliamentary seats from the 1990 elections remain excluded from the national convention.5
So far during the National Convention the military has “suggested” 104 basic principles, which have trumped submissions from other delegates. The 104 basic principles, if accepted, will guarantee the military a leading role in Burma’s political future.
Under the 104 basic principles, which are “allegedly” being considered at the National Convention 25 per cent of parliamentary seats would be reserved for military personnel who are appointed to these positions. Moreover, the remaining 75 per cent of seats will be made up of elected individuals, which can include past members of the military, people from the USDA, other political organisations and individuals that meet the requirements set out by the SPDC.
In 2007 the SPDC imposed a new regulation amongst members of the army. For those that had not reached the rank of Lieutenant Major by the age of 35 or Colonel by 50 they were transferred to civilian positions within the government. The enforcement of this new regulation potentially could have seen an estimated 5,000 members of the army transfer to civilian positions.6 Some analysts have suggested that this is in preparation of a transition to a “civil” run State administration system, and that by transferring staff who have already been indoctrinated into the military’s way of thinking into positions where they will have influence and potentially be able to stand for elections.
Consequently, it is very likely that the representation of military interests, whether it is from the military itself, USDA members, retired military personnel, in the parliament will be more than the 25 per cent quota set aside for the military under the proposed constitution - placing the military in a strong position to reject laws and ideas from ‘real’ elected representatives and further consolidating their power within the country. To change the constitution the motion needs to be passed by a 75 per cent majority. This means that the constitution cannot be changed without the support of the military.
Furthermore, the system of government proposed within the National Convention is the Presidential System, where the President leads the executive body. Under the 104 basic principles the President who will have power and not be a figure head, can not be held accountable to the parliament or the judiciary, while they are carrying out their duties as set out in the constitution or any related laws. With this clause in place, it will be essentially impossible to impose checks and balances on the Presidential power.
What more, the basic principles set out a number of qualifications that the President must posses. The President must have been residing in the country for the past 20 years, have experience relating to the State’s administration, military and economic systems and at least 15 years military service. As the Burmese military does not allow women to serve in the armed forces, all women are excluded from becoming the President of Burma, including Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. These qualifications exclude most pro-democracy candidates again including Daw Aung San Suu Kyi for the role, as they do not have the required military service, and ensure that a member of the military (whether still serving or retired) will always hold the position.
Moreover, the defense, security/home affairs and border affairs ministries will all be held by members of the military. These basic principles ensure that the military will have an influential position in the future government of Burma, regardless of what the population wants.
The military junta claims that the National Convention is a step on their road map to Democracy. This might be true, if the National Convention was a forum where all stakeholders could openly and freely discuss what kind of Burma they want for the future. Win Hlaing, MP-elect and member of the National League for Democracy said, “Political, ethnic and military forces need to meet and discuss about the country, and what type of nation we want. It cannot be dominated by one force. All must be included.”
The National Convention is an illusion of leaders wanting to return power to the people - a very bad illusion. Instead of leading Burma towards democracy, the National Convention is further entrenching the military into the leadership of the country. If the military are given legitimacy through the constitution it is unknown how far they will use their power. It is an issue for the people today and for the future generation.
Endnotes:
NLM (May 18th, 2004) Regulations are prescribed in the interest of the national races and the delegates
Law 5/96, SLORC, June 7th, 1996
“Students sentenced”, The Irrawaddy, February 23rd, 2004
“Ten Shan Activists Arrested in Myanmar for conspiracy”, Agence France Presse, March 15th, 2005
“National Convention: Roadmap to Instability”, Altsean Burma, July 17th, 2007
Burma Issues Internal Document, 2007
To go to the other articles published in the June/July 2007 BI Newsletter click on the links below:
...the sixth objective...put the final nail in the coffin for a free and democratic Burma...
