Leaders face constitutional challenges
In what some thought could be a gamechanger in the Myanmar political landscape, a move for constitutional amendment was unsurprisingly voted down in the Union parliament last Thursday. It was a crucial vote for many prodemocracy forces, especially the National League for Democracy (NLD) which hopes to see its chairwoman Aung San Suu Kyi become the country’s next president.
After the voting last Thursday, Aung San Suu Kyi was not surprised by the result and thinks that the unwillingness to support constitutional amendment can ultimately benefit the NLD. She said that “people are now crystal clear about who they have to support”.
On the other hand, the unelected military lawmakers said that while they are not opposed to changing the constitution in the future, they think that doing so now might risk instability. Brigadier General Tin San Hlaing said: “We are making the country’s situation stable by putting 25% military MPs in the parliament.” In addition to the military’s reserved seats in parliament, the commander-in-chief appoints ministers of defence, border affairs and home affairs.
The question now is can the constitution be amended without the support of the military?
The political scenario we see in Myanmar is what some of us call an incomplete or illiberal democratic transition or a defective democracy.
One needs to understand that the dominant role of military in politics was instituted in the seven-step roadmap to ‘discipline-flourishing’ democracy, which was announced by former prime minister Khin Nyunt in August 2003. It was later consolidated in the 2008 constitution.
During my meeting with Gen Khin Nyunt in Yangon last year (though he was no longer in power), he unequivocally stated that Myanmar needs a federal democracy that best suits the country. That speaks a volume and I believe that the objective of the present military leaders is more or less the same.
It is an open secret that any constitutional amendment through the legislative process will be extremely difficult without the military’s support. Even if there are any military lawmaker(s) who wish to support charter changes, they are bound by the commander-in-chief’s directives. There is also a possibility that the incumbent military chief is not authorised to take a decision on major issues, such as constitutional amendment, by himself.
In the backdrop of the recent unsuccessful attempt, there are some people who even suggest that constitutional amendments should be done outside of the parliament. If that route is to be considered, what would that be? Will sanctions or pressures from the international community deliver the desired results?
Last Friday, the spokesperson of the US embassy in Yangon said: “There are provisions in Burma’s constitution, such as the lack of civilian control of the military and the military’s veto power over constitutional amendments, that contradict fundamental democratic principles. It will be important to the ultimate success of Burma’s democratic transformation that the constitution be amended to make it appropriate for a democratic nation.”
We can read from the statement that it is unlikely or even doubtful that the international community will pursue sanctions or pressures when most countries are either working to normalise or strengthen bilateral ties with Myanmar.
Since the days of the military regime, Myanmar’s leaders have been saying that they are impressed or interested in how the military in Indonesia gradually reduced its role in politics over the years.
By now, one should be quite clear that present and former military leaders are concerned about the safety and security for themselves as well as their family members. They obviously do not like to experience a similar disgraceful exit as Hosni Mubarak of Egypt or Slobodan Milosevic of Yugoslavia.
Also, with the continued armed conflicts in some parts of the country, some military leaders may also hold - explicitly or implicitly - the opinion that it is still too early to transfer absolute power to civilian control.
Myanmar’s transition is a gradual or incremental one that will drag on for years, if not decades. It is also one form of consensual transition where the authoritarian leaders actively participate in the process of change by controlling or limiting the change. In this type of transition, there is some degree of political continuity between authoritarianism and democratic regime.
Any constitutional amendment will be extremely difficult without the military’s support.