Self-degradation in the 2010 elections

Friday, 26 March 2010 13:14 Min Ko Moe (Commentary)

(Mizzima) - Free and fair conduct in the coming general election in Burma is not the issue, rather the issue is the rule of military dictatorship as the constitution compels civilians to subordinate their will to that of a military clique. The constitution is designed to control the minds and actions of all civilians, thereby denying them the right to dignified self-preservation. As the result, voting in and contesting the upcoming election is a process of democratic choices for self-degradation.

The constitution will divide the citizenship into two levels of status, the permanent ruling military class and the permanent ruled civilian class. According to the constitution, 25 percent of Hluttaw seats are reserved for military personnel. Moreover, whenever a clash of interests occurs between civilians and the military, the elected people’s representatives have no democratic choices, their only option to ignore justice as urged upon them by the civilians who elected them into office.

Article 6(f) of the new constitution states “the Union’s consistent objective is enabling the Defence Services to be able to participate in the National political leadership role of the State.” This is important as the provision of granting political power in the hands of one group is dangerous. Moreover, the interests of military representatives may or may not be similar to the interests of civilians. As evidenced in the language of the 2008 constitution, the military clique’s emphasis is on non-disintegration of the Union, military rule and justice according to the law whereas the civilian emphasis is on civilian rule, federalism, democracy and law according to justice. This clash, however, can only be resolved by the military as the constitution grants them the leading role in politics.

Most people who are going to contest the election are civilians who love the people. Whoever is elected, they have a moral and legal responsibility to solve the problems of the people and in particular their constituency. If the people call for social justice, elected representatives have a moral and legal duty to discuss, debate and enact the most appropriate political solution. However, the constitution only allows them to discuss the matter of justice for the realization of non-disintegration of the Union, rather than justice as an end in itself.

Without justice in the political, economic and social spheres, the lives of the people will be hard to live in a dignified manner. Yet, after enforcement of the constitution, public discontentment to the law of discrimination might target elected representatives who are actually powerless to fulfil the interests of the people. As a result, elected representatives would be forced to abdicate their moral responsibility as they are powerless to enforce justice. If, for example, the people urge the military to reduce its budget, estimated around 40 percent of annual State income, and instead increase investment in education and health, elected representatives would be in a dilemma as whether to follow natural justice or the military clique’s imposed justice.

Even though Burma is composed of 135 National races, the military overlooks the importance of national minorities, ethnics and indigenous people in the process of state-building. The constitution unequivocally excludes the term ‘minority’ and the idea of group rights. Instead, it uses the term ‘National Races’. Provisions regarding National Races are:

Article 354 (d): “Every citizen shall be at liberty in the exercise of the following rights, if not contrary to the laws, enacted for Union security, prevalence of law and order, community peace and tranquillity or public order and morality to develop their language, literature, culture they cherish, religion they profess, and customs without prejudice to the relations between one national race and another or among national races and to other faiths.”

Article 365: “Every citizen shall, in accord with the law, have the right to freely to develop literature, culture, arts, customs and traditions they cherish. In the process, they shall avoid any act detrimental to national solidarity.”

No provision is mentioned in the constitution for the collective enjoyment of people belonging to minority groups. There is no provision for minority groups to establish and administer their own educational institutions. There is no provision which allocates political power for minority groups in order to protect and promote their identity and welfare. Ultimately, ethnic groups are are denied the fundamental rights to protect their self-preservation and identity because the game of identity politics would be legally criminalised under the title of non-disintegration of the Union. Therefore, for minorities, voting and contesting elections would mean the exercise of democratic choices for identity-degradation.

Having a sense of right and wrong, just and unjust, fair and unfair, responsible citizens will surely struggle for justice, human dignity and identity. Without the administration of justice, the right to dignity and identity will not be properly safeguarded. On the one hand, soldiers and bureaucrats who have a legal responsibility to work for the realization of the purposes of the constitution will degrade self-esteem through their self-actions by violating the natural justice in their professions. The military is responsible for all acts of injustice prevailing in Burma. In other words, if equality in dignity and human beings is the foundation of justice, peace and development, inequality in dignity and rights stands for injustice, war and underdevelopment. Therefore any civil conflicts and poverty are the fault of the military due to their exploitation of the people.

Exploitation of man by man is not merely a matter of self-degradation for oppressed civilians, it is a matter of non-recognition of civilians as being human. According to the constitution, all civilians, including the 75 percent of elected people’s representatives, are excluded from mainstream politics. Civilians will not be able to enjoy their inate rights. Ironically, the enslavement of civilians would reaffirm the Basic Principles of the Union, as mentioned in Article 4: “Sovereign power of the State is derived from the citizens and is in force in the whole country”. This basic principle does not tell us the specific space or political body to exercise the sovereign power on behalf of the people. It is not clear that citizens have to give up their fundamental rights.

This argument highlights the powerless nature of the elected people’s representatives to protect and promote the inherent dignity and identity of those who elected them. For example:

Article 20 (e): “The Defence Services is mainly responsible for safeguarding the non-disintegration of the Union, the non- disintegration of National solidarity and the perpetuation of sovereignty.”

Article 20 (f): “The Defence Services is mainly responsible for safeguarding the Constitution.”

Amazingly, the constitution empowers the military to safeguard the non-disintegration of the Union and the constitution. The constitution does not give civilians the power to protect their lives and liberty. Under the veil of non-disintegration of the Union, the military clique arranges to protect themselves in the name of national politics no matter the cause of justice. In this context, the constitution cannot even be ammended without approval from 75 percent of the Hluttaw.

Therefore, respect between the State and individual is not a reciprocal relationship. The constitution grants too much power to the State. Following the philosophy of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, equality in dignity and rights of human beings can serve as the foundation of justice, peace and development. However, the 2008 constitution of Burma is designed to achieve the non-disintegration of the Union over justice. The scope of justice is thus limited within the concept of non-disintegration so that justice is not for all, but for a military clique in the name of Unity and Solidarity. Contesting a free and fair election in the context of Burma would mean voluntary agreement to the limitation of the scope of justice and the voluntary subordination of civilians to rule via military diktat. Therefore, in such a context the exercising of political rights such as the rights to vote and contest political office is an exercise in self-degradation.

(The author is a political science scholar living in New Delhi.)