Excerpt from

Excerpt from

Federalism, Burma and How The International Community Can Help 
by Janelle Saffin

In 1961 the Shan State submitted to the Union Government a proposal that recommended changes to the 1947 constitution. The central tenet was to amend the constitution so that its form became clearly federal. Delegates attendant at the Shan State Convention held in Taunggyi in February 1961 had ratified the proposal. The proposals of themselves are neither scary nor novel and outline matters that essentially describe a standard model of federalism.

The first of five key proposals that could give rise to contention was the establishment of a Burmese State as they called it, understood to mean a Burman State. Many Burmans who are happy to have a federation, do not understand the necessity of having a Burman State, when it has no historical basis, whereas the other States do have clear historical basis. What was being proposed was a symmetrical federation, without first having debated the merits and demerits of symmetrical and asymmetrical federalism. The Shan State charged that under the 1947 constitution, specifically Article 222, Burma Proper had taken on the form of the 'Union Government'. This, understandably, was cause for concern. 

Whilst the current draft federal constitution produced by the National Council of the Union of Burma (NCUB) contains a proposal for the establishment of eight states including a Burman one, its inclusion appears to have been added more to accommodate the desires of the seven major ethnic nationalities, and sensibilities of trying to effect equality, rather than having been determined within a debate about the suitability of symmetrical or asymmetrical federalism. Although some understand the issues vis-?-vis symmetrical and asymmetrical, it is not apparent that it has been widely explored. 

The demand for equality has always been the real dominating factor and it has been equated with all things being prima facie equal. This results in a symmetrical federal arrangement, which may well transpire to be the best solution for Burma. However it requires more detailed understanding and debate before any such decision can be made. Aung San himself had issued seven directives, to be taken up as guidelines for the constitutional drafting committee, that strongly focused on equality and autonomy, particularly for the states. When he introduced the draft constitution to the Constituent Assembly he said it was as a basis of discussion. Due to his untimely death, the Constituent Assembly had to complete this task without the benefit of U Aung San and his Cabinet's input.

At least the parties outside and some inside Burma are seized by this debate, whilst the military, still trapped in its anti-federalism shroud, is unable to consider any aspects of its symmetrical-asymmetrical applicability.

The Union Government's Constitution Revision Committee, established by the Union Parliament and Chaired by the Honourable Judicial Minister Dr E. 

Maung, came to consider the Shan State proposals and subsequently produced a report. Their terms of reference were, among others, to: 

…Please examine the demands made by the Shan State people and its Government and, after consulting the leaders and representatives of the peoples of the States and Burma Proper, please give your advice and suggestions as to what steps should be taken …

The Committee did a good job of classifying the grievances as put in the Shan proposals, into what were essentially constitutional and political. They recommended those that were capable of resolution by political means, but it was the discussion contained under the heading 'Constitutional Question' that revealed the prevailing thinking regarding federalism. I must say that the federalism debate that has taken place in Burma has always been equated with secession, and this has added to the fear of federalism and the stifling of debate by all parties. The Committee pointed out that the Shan proposals demanded a true, real - what is called a 'genuine' federal system, but they don't describe what is meant by this demand. Whilst this is true to a point, the nature of the amendments proposed implied a standard model of federalism. 

The term is still used today and I would recommend abandoning it, as it simply adds to the cleavage, and it is better to describe what is wanted in concrete proposals.

In answering this question about true federalism, the Committee examined the federations of the USA, Australia, Canada, South Africa, India, and Switzerland and concluded correctly yet disingenuously that: 

…There is thus no real type of Federal Government… 

They went on to say, incorrectly, that: 

…Even if there is a real form of Federal Government on paper, yet in actual practice it becomes unitary… 

To conclude that the USA, Australia, Canada, India and Switzerland were unitary states demonstrates a profound conceptual gap, which is surprising given that the erudite Dr E.Maung chaired the Committee.

They went on to examine whether or not the proposals would strengthen the Union and predicably concluded that they would not. They concluded this without proffering any evidence and decided that federalism would lead to the break-up of the Union.