Burma (Myanmar) Federalism is a Trap—True Freedom is the Only Solution
For decades, the Burman-led government has promoted federalism as a supposed solution for ethnic minorities in Burma (Myanmar). It has been presented as a path toward peace and equality. Yet, history has repeatedly shown that federalism does not—and will not—work in a system where the Burmans still control the levers of power.
A History of Broken Promises and Suppression
The idea of a federal union in Burma (Myanmar) traces back to the Panglong Agreement of 1947, when Aung San, the leader of Burma’s independence movement, promised ethnic groups autonomy in exchange for joining an independent Burma. However, after Aung San’s assassination, his successors in the Burman-dominated government abandoned these commitments, leading to decades of ethnic resistance.
The 1962 military coup by General Ne Win further solidified Burman dominance, abolishing the federal system altogether and imposing a unitary state. Ethnic minorities who sought greater autonomy faced brutal crackdowns, forced assimilation, and cultural erasure. The Karen, Kachin, Shan, Mon, Arakan, Chin, and others were labeled insurgents and subjected to relentless military campaigns that continue to this day.
During the so-called democratic transition under Thein Sein (2011–2016) and later Aung San Suu Kyi’s NLD government (2016–2021), federalism was reintroduced as a political promise. However, it remained a hollow concept, as the Tatmadaw (Myanmar’s military) retained ultimate control over key institutions, including security forces, the economy, and governance structures. The military-drafted 2008 Constitution ensured that no true federal system could ever take shape.
Federalism: A Tool for Continued Burman Domination
The very structure of Burma’s (Myanmar) government ensures that federalism is a tool of control, not liberation. The military, through the 2008 Constitution, reserved 25% of parliamentary seats for itself, giving it veto power over any constitutional change. Even when ethnic leaders attempted to negotiate within this system, they faced constant delays, manipulations, and betrayals.
For instance, the Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement (NCA) of 2015 was presented as a step toward federalism, but in reality, it served as a mechanism for the military to consolidate its power while fragmenting ethnic resistance groups. Ethnic armed organizations (EAOs) that signed the agreement were later undermined, while those that refused were subjected to intensified military offensives.
The post-coup environment following the February 1, 2021, military takeover further exposed the lie of federalism. The military reversed any progress ethnic groups hoped to achieve and escalated its attacks against ethnic resistance forces, including the Karen National Union (KNU), the Kachin Independence Army (KIA), and others. The promise of federalism once again proved to be nothing more than a delaying tactic to maintain Burman supremacy.
How Federalism vs. Independence Impacts Each Ethnic Group
1. Karen (Kayin)
Federalism: Under a federal system, the Karen remain subjected to central Burmese control, with limited authority over their land, resources, and governance.
Independence: A free Karen State would allow the Karen National Union (KNU) to govern without Burman interference, preserving their language, culture, and land rights.
2. Karenni (Kayah)
Federalism: The Karenni people have experienced forced assimilation and human rights abuses under Burman-led policies. Under federalism, they risk continued marginalization.
Independence: A sovereign Karenni State would grant them control over their political affairs, natural resources, and security, ensuring protection from military aggression.
3. Kachin
Federalism: The Kachin have long been targeted for their Christian faith and rich jade resources. Under federalism, they would still struggle for resource control against the Burmese state.
Independence: An independent Kachin State would allow self-determination and prevent exploitation by Burmese military-backed companies.
4. Shan
Federalism: The Shan have been manipulated through ceasefires that only served to weaken their resistance while allowing the Burmese military to expand its presence.
Independence: A free Shan State would restore their ability to govern themselves and protect against Burman encroachment and drug trade exploitation.
5. Mon
Federalism: The Mon people, one of the oldest civilizations in Myanmar, have been suppressed under Burmese control, with their language and identity under threat.
Independence: Full independence would allow the Mon to revive their cultural identity, manage their own land, and promote economic self-sufficiency.
6. Rakhine (Arakan)
Federalism: The Rakhine people remain politically suppressed, with limited representation. Under federalism, Burman rule would continue to exploit their coastal economy.
Independence: A sovereign Arakan State would allow the Rakhine to govern themselves, free from Burmese control, ensuring economic and cultural revitalization.
7. Chin
Federalism: Chin Christians face religious persecution under Burmese rule. Federalism would continue the state’s control over their land and people.
Independence: Independence would allow the Chin people to freely practice their religion and manage their own affairs without Burman interference.
8. Wa
Federalism: The Wa people have effectively governed themselves through the United Wa State Army (UWSA), but under federalism, they would have to negotiate power with the Burmese state.
Independence: Full sovereignty would grant the Wa people direct control over their governance, security, and trade without external restrictions.
9. Pa’O
Federalism: The Pa’O have been historically dominated by the Burmese government and larger ethnic groups like the Shan.
Independence: A Pa’O State would secure their political rights and prevent further marginalization.
10. Ta’ang (Palaung)
Federalism: The Palaung have been manipulated through temporary alliances but remain under Burmese control.
Independence: Sovereignty would allow them to govern themselves and protect their tea industry from Burmese economic exploitation.
11. Kokang
Federalism: As a Chinese-speaking ethnic group, the Kokang have faced discrimination and military attacks. Federalism would not protect them from future persecution.
Independence: An independent Kokang State would enable self-rule and protection of their identity and economy.
The Only True Solution: Complete Self-Determination
History has shown that no amount of negotiation, ceasefires, or constitutional amendments will grant true autonomy to ethnic groups. The only sustainable solution is complete self-determination—a free and independent state for each ethnic nation.
Self-Governance: Each ethnic group must have full control over its political, legal, and economic systems without interference from the Burman-dominated government.
Protection of Cultural Identity: Ethnic nations must be able to preserve and promote their own languages, traditions, and governance structures.
Equal Power Structures: Power must be shared among ethnic groups rather than centralized under a single Burman-dominated entity.
The Role of the International Community
The international community, including the United States, the United Nations, and ASEAN, must recognize that federalism is a failed experiment. Instead of pushing a framework that inherently benefits the Burman ruling class, the world must support:
Recognition of ethnic independence movements and their legitimate right to self-rule.
Sanctions and pressure on Myanmar’s military, ensuring it cannot continue its campaign of ethnic persecution.
Direct diplomatic engagement with ethnic governments-in-exile and ethnic armed organizations fighting for self-determination.
Federalism was never meant to work in Burma. It has always been a tool for Burman leaders to manipulate ethnic groups while keeping ultimate power in their hands. True peace and justice will only be achieved when ethnic minorities gain full independence and autonomy.
The world must stop believing in the illusion of federalism. The time for true freedom is now.
References
Callahan, M. (2003). Making Enemies: War and State Building in Burma. Cornell University Press.
Smith, M. (1991). Burma: Insurgency and the Politics of Ethnicity. Zed Books.
South, A. (2018). Ethnic Politics in Burma: States of Conflict. Routledge.
International Crisis Group. (2022). Myanmar’s Stalled Transition and the Risks of Federalism. Retrieved from www.crisisgroup.org
Human Rights Watch. (2023). Ethnic Conflict in Myanmar: The Illusion of Federalism and the Reality of Persecution. Retrieved from www.hrw.org
Lintner, B. (1994). Burma in Revolt: Opium and Insurgency Since 1948. Westview Press.
Farrelly, N. (2016). The Limits of Myanmar’s Transition: International and Domestic Perspectives. ASAA Southeast Asia Publications.
Cheesman, N. (2015). Opposing the Rule of Law: How Myanmar’s Courts Make Law and Order. Cambridge University Press.
Walton, M. (2013). The “Wages of Burman-ness”: Ethnicity and Burman Privilege in Contemporary Myanmar. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 43(1), 1-27.
Buchanan, J. (2016). Militias in Myanmar: Implications for the Peace Process. The Asia Foundation.
Myanmar Peace Monitor. (2023). Analysis of the Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement and its Impact on Ethnic Armed Organizations. Retrieved from www.mmpeacemonitor.org
Amnesty International. (2022). Myanmar: The Military’s Atrocities Against Ethnic Minorities. Retrieved from www.amnesty.org
Oo, T. (2021). The Future of Myanmar’s Ethnic Struggles: Federalism or Independence? New Mandala.
Myanmar Now. (2023). Why Ethnic Armed Organizations Are Rejecting the Federal Model. Retrieved from www.myanmar-now.org
United Nations Human Rights Council. (2022). The Genocide of the Rohingya and Systematic Ethnic Suppression in Myanmar. Retrieved from www.ohchr.org
The Diplomat. (2023). Myanmar’s Armed Resistance and the Role of Ethnic Nationalism. Retrieved from www.thediplomat.com
Humanitarian Aid Relief Trust (HART). (2023). Voices from the Ground: Testimonies from Ethnic Minorities in Myanmar. Retrieved from www.hart-uk.org
Burma Campaign UK. (2022). The Failure of Federalism in Myanmar: A Policy Report. Retrieved from www.burmacampaign.org.uk
The Irrawaddy. (2023). Ethnic Leaders Speak: Why We Reject Federalism and Demand Independence. Retrieved from www.irrawaddy.com
The National Unity Government of Myanmar (NUG). (2023). Ethnic Autonomy and Federalism: Myths vs. Reality. Retrieved from www.nugmyanmar.org
