The Case for Shared Power Through Ethnic Independence in Burma (Myanmar)

Introduction: The Problem with Centralized Power

Myanmar’s long history of centralized power—dominated by a single ruling entity—has led to widespread human rights violations, systemic marginalization, and violent conflicts. This concentration of authority, whether under the military junta (Tatmadaw), the National League for Democracy (NLD), or the National Unity Government (NUG), has perpetuated the dominance of the Burman ethnic majority at the expense of ethnic minorities.

Defining Shared Power

Shared power in this context means a system where each ethnic group has full independence, autonomy, and self-determination, allowing them to govern themselves free from centralized control. These independent states would coexist and collaborate on matters of mutual interest, creating a regional balance of power. This is fundamentally different from federalism under centralized governance, which carries the risk of continued marginalization.

The Importance of Shared Power Through Independence

1. Autonomy and Self-Determination

• Local Governance: Each ethnic group can establish governments that reflect their cultural values, traditions, and socio-political priorities.

• Freedom from Oppression: Independence removes the historical dominance of the Burman majority, ensuring that no single ethnic group imposes its will on others.

• Empowerment: Communities can make decisions directly affecting their future without external interference.

2. Preservation of Cultural Identity

• Cultural Freedom: Ethnic groups can promote their languages, religions, and traditions without fear of assimilation or suppression.

• Protection of Diversity: Independence ensures that the rich cultural and religious diversity of Myanmar’s ethnic groups is safeguarded.

3. Economic Sovereignty

• Control Over Resources: Ethnic groups can manage their own natural resources, such as jade, timber, and gas, ensuring revenues benefit local populations.

• Equitable Development: Economic policies can be tailored to the needs of specific communities, reducing exploitation and fostering prosperity.

4. Prevention of Future Conflicts

• Avoiding Centralized Domination: With each ethnic group independently governing itself, there is no central authority to oppress or marginalize others.

• Resolution of Grievances: Independence addresses historical injustices by empowering ethnic groups to determine their own futures, reducing the likelihood of violent resistance.

Risks of Federalism Under the NUG

1. Continuation of Burmanization

• Historical Alignment with Burman Interests: The NUG, while opposing the military junta, is composed of many individuals who have historically prioritized Burman-centric policies.

• Superficial Rhetoric on Federalism: Promises of federalism often mask the intent to maintain control over ethnic regions while offering limited autonomy.

• Cultural and Religious Assimilation: The Burmanization policies of past civilian governments risk continuing under NUG leadership, threatening the distinct identities of ethnic groups.

2. Lack of Genuine Representation

• Token Inclusion: While the NUG includes some ethnic representatives, decision-making remains largely dominated by Burman leaders.

• Distrust Among Ethnic Groups: Decades of betrayal and neglect make it unlikely that ethnic minorities will trust the NUG to prioritize their needs over Burman interests.

3. Centralized Resource Control

• Exploitation Risks: Federalism under the NUG could perpetuate centralized control over resources, leaving ethnic regions vulnerable to continued exploitation.

• Unfair Distribution: Ethnic groups may receive limited benefits from their own resources while revenues disproportionately flow to central authorities.

4. Risk of Repeating Historical Failures

• Broken Promises: Past agreements, like the Panglong Agreement, which promised autonomy, were never honored. Federalism under the NUG risks repeating this pattern.

• Centralized Military Power: Without dismantling or drastically reforming the Tatmadaw, federalism could simply mean ethnic regions remain under military control.

The Case Against Federalism

1. Federalism Risks Prolonging Marginalization

• Federalism under the NUG keeps power centralized, albeit in a modified form, continuing the marginalization of ethnic groups by limiting true autonomy.

2. Inherent Inequities in Federal Structures

• Power-sharing agreements under federalism often leave minority regions with symbolic rather than substantive control.

3. Burman-Centric Leadership

• Federalism still relies on Burman-dominated leadership structures, risking prioritization of national unity over genuine decentralization.

The Advantages of Ethnic Independence

1. Self-Determination

• Ethnic groups would govern themselves, ensuring that decisions reflect their unique needs and aspirations.

2. Balanced Regional Power

• Independent ethnic states would collaborate as equals on regional and international matters, creating a balanced distribution of power and reducing domination by any single group.

3. Conflict Resolution

• Independence eliminates the grievances caused by centralized control, fostering peace by removing the root causes of ethnic resistance.

4. International Recognition and Cooperation

• Independent states can engage directly with the international community, securing aid, trade agreements, and diplomatic partnerships tailored to their specific needs.

The Role of the National Unity Government

1. Flaws in the NUG’s Composition

• Many NUG leaders are drawn from the same elite groups that historically prioritized Burman interests over ethnic autonomy.

• There is little evidence that the NUG will break from the patterns of past governments, which promised federalism but delivered continued centralization.

2. Risks of Burmanization

• The NUG’s rhetoric of "national unity" often mirrors the military’s justification for cultural and religious assimilation.

3. Missed Opportunities for Trust-Building

• The NUG’s failure to commit unequivocally to independence for ethnic groups undermines its credibility among ethnic minorities.

Conclusion: Why Shared Power Through Independence is Necessary

Myanmar’s history demonstrates that centralized power—whether under military or civilian rule—inevitably leads to marginalization, human rights violations, and violent conflicts. Federalism under the NUG carries significant risks, as it relies on a structure that has historically failed to deliver autonomy or justice for ethnic minorities.

The path forward lies in shared power through independence. By allowing each ethnic group to govern itself, Myanmar can establish a system where power is distributed equally among independent states. This model would:

• Protect cultural identities.

• Empower local populations.

• Ensure economic fairness.

• Foster regional stability through mutual respect and collaboration.

Shared power, defined by independence and cooperation, offers the best hope for a just and peaceful future for all the ethnic peoples of Burma (Myanmar).