Myanmar – Form of Government and Electoral and Party System
Essay Preview: Myanmar – Form of Government and Electoral and Party System
Report this essay
[pic 1][pic 2][pic 3][pic 4][pic 5][pic 6]Executive SummaryThis paper examines and makes broad recommendations on the most suitable “form of government” and “electoral and party system” to structure a robust and sustainable government for Myanmar to solve its present day challenges. We propose a constitutional parliamentary system for Myanmar, which is most appropriate for a fledgling democracy like Myanmar, being more likely to achieve the general political consensus necessary for efficiency in legislation. We also propose an electoral system of proportional representation with certain adjustments; and political parties being able to form freely without any quotas restrictions in terms of ethnicity or other cultural considerations. This is expected to lead to greater ethnic minority representation in the government, and go a long way in supporting efforts to achieve ethnic peace.Introduction and ObjectivesMyanmar has been ruled since 1962 by a military dictatorship (“the junta”) that brooked no criticism or dissent.[1] The self-imposed junta rule provoked Western governments to impose some 40 years of economic sanctions resulting in Myanmar today being one of the world’s most impoverished and backward nations.[2] Since economic sanctions were lifted,[3] the country has experienced rapid economic and social development. [4] Moving ahead, Myanmar’s government needs to be strong and effective; a government that can expediently pass the necessary legislation to facilitate Myanmar’s economic and social development. A more crucial issue of governance in Myanmar would be how the government can adequately represent the diverse ethnic and religious constituents of the country. The Myanmar government officially recognises 135 ethnic groups.[5] However 3 ethnic groups compose approximately 85% of the population – Burman (69%), Shan (9%) and Karen (7%).[6] The ethnic minorities living in Myanmar’s borderlands have, for the last 60 years, been engaged in an intermittent civil war with the central government,[7] and are generally distrusting of notions of “centralised majority-rule”[8] due to the numeric dominance of the Burmans. Myanmar’s transitional democracy[9] is therefore facing the challenge of establishing a political regime capable of representing the 135 state-recognised ethnic groups without jeopardising political consensus and efficiency to rapidly legislate the much-needed socio-economic reforms to bring the country forward. This paper examines and makes broad recommendations on the most suitable “form of government” and “electoral and party system” to structure a robust and sustainable government ready to solve these challenges. In the first section, we propose a constitutional parliamentary system for Myanmar, which will promote “effective [and] responsible government.”[10] We suggest that the parliamentary system is most appropriate for a fledgling democracy like Myanmar, being more likely to achieve the general political consensus necessary for efficiency in legislation. In the second section, we propose an electoral system of proportional representation with certain adjustments, with political parties being able to form freely without any quotas or ethnic restrictions. This is expected to lead to greater ethnic minority representation in the government, and go a long way in supporting efforts to achieve ethnic peace.
Form of government Between Myanmar’s independence from British rule in 1948 and the military coup d’état in 1962, Myanmar had a parliamentary system of governance.[11] However, a number of reasons including weak political and economic institutions, politicking, and a lack of legitimacy to the government, caused the parliamentary democracy experiment to fail.[12] Yet, in seeking to overcome its present-day problems, we recommend that Myanmar revert to the parliamentary form of government.Parliamentary or Presidential System?First, a parliamentary democracy rests on “conventional institutions such as universal adult suffrage, free and fair elections, the separation of powers, an independent judiciary, free press, civil liberties and constitutionally guaranteed basic rights.”[13] In Myanmar’s context, these institutions would lay the foundation of representative democracy and provide a voice to its ethnic minorities. Second, the cabinet of ministers that forms the executive is directly accountable to the legislature. As a consequence, they are also directly accountable to the people since the legislature is comprised of members elected by the population of the country.[14] This acts as a check-and-balance and prevents unbridled use of power by the executive. Power is also often distributed between various political parties, and not concentrated in one person or party. Laws are passed by a majority, which requires consensus building within the Parliament, thereby taking diverse interests into account. Lastly, abuse of power on the part of the head of state or government can be checked by means of a defeat in the next general election, and also by means of a “no-confidence” motion passed by a majority in the legislature.[15] Compared to the parliamentary system, the presidential system has a greater tendency towards authoritarianism because the president is at the helm and extensive powers vest in his person.[16] The separation of powers under a presidential system also establishes the presidency and the legislature as two parallel structures, such that it is possible and often common that the president and the majority party in the legislature hold different political ideologies[17] This potentially causes political gridlocks when there are serious disagreements,[18] producing legislative inefficiency which is not ideal for Myanmar, a young democracy in need of efficient and rapid development.