Myanmar Spring Chronicle – September 19 Scene
(MoeMaKa) September 20, 2024
To realize the dream of a Federal Union…
In the discussions about building the future Union of Myanmar after overcoming military dictatorship, many terms have been used to describe the type of union to establish, including Democratic Federal Union, Federal Democratic Union, and Genuine Federal Union. These debates about federalism were also held during the Panglong Peace Conferences before the military coup. Over time, mistrust among groups regarding the meaning of federalism has persisted due to historical lessons.
Before the 1962 coup, federalism was a topic of vigorous discussion. However, under the leadership of Ne Win, the military distorted the concept of federalism as a separatist agenda, using this as a justification for seizing power. In the early years after independence, there were no significant discussions between the Union government and ethnic political leaders about federalism, as many ethnic leaders believed that equal rights would naturally come with independence.
However, in 1958, during the political split within the Anti-Fascist People’s Freedom League (AFPFL), the military used this division as a pretext to form a caretaker government. This moment renewed awareness of the importance of federalism. After the elected government returned to power in 1960, discussions about federalism gained momentum among ethnic political leaders. These talks were driven partly by the promise made by General Aung San to the ethnic groups before independence, which allowed for self-determination after 10 years of living together in the Union.
With the 1962 military coup, ethnic leaders were arrested, and some groups resorted to armed rebellion, leading to more than two decades of conflict between ethnic armed groups and the military-led Revolutionary Council. Under the Socialist one-party rule of the Burma Socialist Programme Party (BSPP), the term “federalism” was completely banned.
After the fall of the BSPP regime and the 1988 military coup, the military handed power to another group of generals. During the rule of General Saw Maung and then General Than Shwe for nearly 20 years, the term “federalism” remained prohibited.
It was not until after 2011, when the military engaged in peace talks and signed ceasefire agreements with some armed groups, that federalism re-entered public discourse. The reforms and political transition led by the military leadership allowed for renewed discussions on federalism, and the concept began to spread among the public.
After February 1, 2021, the term “federalism” became widely used, as many people united in their calls to overthrow the military dictatorship and establish a Federal Union. However, as of 2024, after more than three and a half years of widespread armed conflict, the question remains whether federalism and the dream of equal rights and autonomy for all ethnic groups is still the shared goal.
In the ethnic regions, some armed groups have been successfully fighting against the military and capturing their bases. There are armed groups still committed to building a Federal Union, but others have proposed a confederation model, going beyond federalism.
Given these circumstances, it is clear that the path ahead after fighting against the military junta may not lead to a single Federal Union but could branch into multiple roads. Some armed groups might exercise their right to self-determination and choose their own paths. The possibility of multiple outcomes in the formation of the future state should not be ignored.
With such potential divergences, some Myanmar politicians and Spring Revolution leaders have started to emphasize the importance of uniting under the banner of federalism. Calls to rally around the idea of a Federal Union have emerged here and there.
In the future, turning the dream of a Federal Union into reality will require not only aspirations but also a shared history of overcoming challenges together.