An interview with U Khin Maung Win, an expert on federal affairs, on whether new states can emerge in the future in building a federal democratic country.
Since the military seized power on 1 February 2021, the country has experienced significant armed resistance to the dictatorship. As the conflict has escalated, the military council has faced unprecedented territorial losses.
Notably, during Operation 1027, led by the Three Brotherhood Alliance, resistance forces seized substantial territory in northern Shan State and Arakan State. This has sparked speculation about the potential emergence of new states in the future.
The Network Media Group (NMG) interviewed U Khin Maung Win, a federal affairs expert, about the potential factors that could contribute to the emergence of new states in a future federal union, as well as the criteria for establishing these new states.
U Khin Maung Win is a member of the Central Leading Committee of the All Burma Students’ Democratic Front (ABSDF) and a founder of DVB (Democratic Voice of Burma). He is a freelance observer of the future federal democratic country, specializing in federalism and constitution, and teaches courses on federalism as well.
Q: People believe Myanmar is at a crossroads. Is there a possibility for new states to emerge in a future federal union?
A: In the future, if Myanmar transitions to a federal country, we need to think about how the new states will be, and how the federal form will appear. It also depends on how it becomes federal. If the central government is strong and effective, a federal structure could be based on the existing seven regions and states. If there is a strong central authority, similar to what was seen during the U Thein Sein and NLD governments, a federal structure could be established based on the existing states and regions.
Q: What is the future situation of Myanmar likely to be?
A: However, the federal model emerging in Myanmar will not reflect that structure, as the central authorities are collapsing, and the military council, once considered strong, is also crumbling. The once powerful NLD government is no more. Now, the ethnic armed groups are collaborating with the PDFs at a time when the military council is weak and collapsing. At that time, the federal system become strong again, and respective groups are implementing their local administrations. Local administrations are currently operational in Karenni State, Arakan State, and Chin State, but only partially in Kachin State and Karen State. A decision has been made to establish a federal system based on a coming-together model. They come together after achieving liberation. In such a situation, it is possible that all the liberated areas could merge. I can’t say for sure. Changes to the territory of Myanmar may also occur. This is one point. Another point is that some believe certain ethnic groups should be granted states, as the country previously established the principle of eight states.
Q: This raises questions about whether the eight-state principle will be effective. What is your view on it?
A: When ethnic groups entitled to states make their demands, it is crucial to consider the wishes of the people in those regions. We have a common concept we often use. What I mean is the sovereignty of the people in that area. If we aim to form a new state bordering two or three existing ones, the desires of the people in those states are crucial. The opinions of those from distant areas are not important. Thus, a new state could emerge. There is a notion that ethnic groups could be organized within seven states. In addition, the seven regions where the majority of Burma people reside should also be transformed into states. Similarly, the seven regions predominantly inhabited by the Bamar ethnic group should undergo the same transformation. The main proposal from the people emphasizes ethnic equality. There is a strong call for a single state for the Bamar people, suggesting that it should be established in areas where the majority reside. Consequently, a Bamar state is likely to emerge in central Myanmar, where most Bamar people live.
Another point is that different ethnic groups inhabit certain regions. Those who have been discussing federal affairs for years have suggested that ethnic states could emerge in Tanintharyi and Ayeyawady, where ethnic communities are mixed. As a result, seven distinct regions may not materialize; however, the number of regions could change.
Q: What are the criteria for defining a new state? Can you elaborate based on General Aung San’s statements regarding the people who should receive statehood?
A: I have read General Aung San’s guidelines. According to him, an ethnic group eligible for statehood must constitute one-tenth of the country’s total population. This ratio is quite significant. There could be ten states in Myanmar according to this ratio. However, a 1:10 ratio is not feasible. Some states may still be established based on their historical and ethnic backgrounds, even if they have a small population. Taking a look at Karenni State, it has a population of hundreds of thousands. Its population is less than a million. However, it exists as a state. At present, the one-tenth ratio is not feasible. In Myanmar, the one-tenth designation is quite substantial. No single ethnic group should have two states, as different ethnicities and languages imply distinct backgrounds. Therefore, there should not be two states representing the same ethnic group. It is essential that the ethnic group entitled to a state should have distinct race, language, and culture. In addition, their geographic locations should be contiguous. We cannot form a new state by grouping different ethnicities from various places. When discussing statehood, it’s important that the ethnic group living there has distinct language and culture. Demographics can be challenging to determine, and establishing a percentage, whether 5% or 10%, is difficult.
Q: Given the situation in Myanmar, should the federal system be structured based on geographical areas or ethnicities? Which approach would be more appropriate?
A: In the United States, states are formed based on geographic locations rather than race. However, in Myanmar, states should be formed based on ethnicity, as these groups have lived separately for a long time and possess distinct languages. They signed the Panglong Agreement, pledging that the Bamar plains and the mountainous regions would regain independence together, and affirming that people from both areas would have equal rights. However, the 1947 constitution, implemented after independence, failed to protect those rights. Ethnic groups faced discrimination when advocating for federalism, which led them to revolt. Initially, their revolution was peaceful.
Most groups joined the armed revolution after the military seized power, expressing fears that federalism could lead to the country’s collapse. The primary reason for the armed uprising is the lack of equal rights for ethnic groups compared to the Bamar people. The armed revolution arose as ethnic groups sought equality. We cannot ask them to remain silent about their ethnic identities or to ignore their backgrounds in favor of geographical considerations when forming states. The federal system should be based on ethnicity, reflecting Myanmar’s historical context.
Q: According to the current political landscape, do the pledges made in the Panglong Agreement still play an important role?
A: The pledges of the Panglong Agreement still hold significant importance. Surveys were conducted to determine whether the Bamar plains and mountainous regions should achieve independence together as the country approached its independence. The mountainous regions expressed a desire to pursue independence collectively. However, the condition was that they must have equal rights with the Bamar people and should not be governed by them.
As a result, the failure to implement these conditions led to a Bamar-dominated political system in Myanmar, where ethnic groups faced discrimination despite living together. This issue needs to be addressed once more. The primary cause of Myanmar’s civil war can be traced back to the inability to implement the Panglong Agreement. To end the civil war, it is essential to revisit and fulfill the promises made in that agreement.
Q: What form might the federal system take in Myanmar’s future?
A: I’d like to reiterate my earlier point: the central authorities in Myanmar are collapsing, and a strong central system no longer exists. Even the military has weakened. Some ethnic states claim that fsederal units will emerge independently, and we are starting to observe this gradual development. These units may arise in areas inhabited by the Bamar as well as in ethnic states.
They will first establish their own management and administration. From there, it can pave the way for shaping a federal government that allows for collaboration on common issues. This means that it will emerge from the states and units. It’s called bottom-up. It’s called “Coming Together”. The United States emerged in a similar manner. At the beginning of independence, there were 13 states. The 13 states have formed a temporary alliance confederation.
A confederation is characterized by powers and authority being primarily held by the states. Over time, they recognized that granting more power to a central government was more beneficial. They formed a federal government. In the United States, the federal government was formed by the states. Similarly, I believe that in Myanmar, the units and ethnic states will come together to establish a federal union.
Q: Could neighboring countries have concerns about the emergence of a federal system in Myanmar?
A: No neighboring country has shown interest or expressed any concerns regarding whether Myanmar adopts a federal or unitary system. This is an internal affair of Myanmar. Among ASEAN countries, only Malaysia practices the federal system. The rest of the countries have no problem.
Their primary concern is that Myanmar’s issues could impact neighboring countries and destabilize the region. Whether a federal system is established in Myanmar, or their support for it, does not directly impact them. They are concerned about the impact of Myanmar’s internal conflict, particularly Thailand, China, India, and Bangladesh. These countries worry about refugees and the spread of conflict to their borders, which raises security concerns.
Sent by NMG