Designing Federalism in Burma

This volume is designed to serve as a concise introduction to certain constitutional ideas that may be relevant to Burma. It contains three documents: one essay by Lian Sakhong, and two lectures that I delivered to the SCSC, over several days in November 2003 and August 2004. All three contain common themes. First, sometimes ideas can show us a way through problems that we had thought were impenetrable. Second, Burma’s problems have grown in part from some misunderstandings of certain ideas. In particular, many in Burma have imagined that governance can really occur only at the center: people look to the central government for ideas, initiative, direction, guidance, money, and even permission. They have feared that decentralization (when people look to state and local governments or even just to themselves as citizens) will lead to the breakdown of the social order. In fact, we know that the opposite is generally true: when the center tries to rule without the support and participation of the people, then the people invariably become angry and restless. Even democratic governments–perhaps especially democratic governments–need the people to be actively involved in their own governance, and the only feasible way for most people to govern themselves is at the local level. When the central government seeks to suppress local government, the people may rise up in arms, but when the central government seeks to support local government, the people may feel gratitude and devotion to the union. In other words, democracy and federalism are not in tension. In fact, it is hard to have democracy without also having some kind of federalism. Every well-functioning democratic government tries to empower the people, on a local basis, to take a hand in building their own future. - David Williams, from the Forwardhttps://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/facbooks/1123/thumbnail.jp

Designing Federalism in Burma

This volume is designed to serve as a concise introduction to certain constitutional ideas that may be relevant to Burma. It contains three documents: one essay by Lian Sakhong, and two lectures that I delivered to the SCSC, over several days in November 2003 and August 2004. All three contain common themes. First, sometimes ideas can show us a way through problems that we had thought were impenetrable. Second, Burma’s problems have grown in part from some misunderstandings of certain ideas. In particular, many in Burma have imagined that governance can really occur only at the center: people look to the central government for ideas, initiative, direction, guidance, money, and even permission. They have feared that decentralization (when people look to state and local governments or even just to themselves as citizens) will lead to the breakdown of the social order. In fact, we know that the opposite is generally true: when the center tries to rule without the support and participation of the people, then the people invariably become angry and restless. Even democratic governments–perhaps especially democratic governments–need the people to be actively involved in their own governance, and the only feasible way for most people to govern themselves is at the local level. When the central government seeks to suppress local government, the people may rise up in arms, but when the central government seeks to support local government, the people may feel gratitude and devotion to the union. In other words, democracy and federalism are not in tension. In fact, it is hard to have democracy without also having some kind of federalism. Every well-functioning democratic government tries to empower the people, on a local basis, to take a hand in building their own future. - David Williams, from the Forwardhttps://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/facbooks/1123/thumbnail.jp

Myanmar: Religion, Identity, and Conflict in a Democratic Transition

Farrelly provides an in-depth assessment of identity-based conflict dynamics within Myanmar’s gradual shift to a more democratic system of government. Civil conflicts, that long raged in the country’s ethnically distinct corners, encourage the fortification of political discourses about identity, unity, and non-disintegration. With its difficult history of bloodshed and trauma, social cohesion is a goal worth pursuing. Myanmar’s transition to an increasingly open, inclusive, prosperous, and peaceful society requires new capacity to be built at every level of government, and across the broad range of ethnic and religious identities. Farrelly argues that working cooperatively and effectively with different identity-based factions in Myanmar is a profound test of the concepts of peacebuilding and conflict resolution