Myanmar\\\'s governance mechanism again under scrutiny

Bangladesh media might not have paid much attention to domestic political developments in Myanmar but evolving factors have been churning up interesting options within that matrix. Interest is being generated all over South East Asia, the European Union and the USA about the possible course of politics in Myanmar over the next few months leading up to the first quarter of 2016. Resource-rich Myanmar and its future governance mechanism are again under scrutiny.
Myanmar officials announced on July 08 that the next general election in the country will be held on November 08 this year. This announcement came after a series of moves by different political parties over the last few months. The elections will mark, according to Michael Peel of the Financial Times a "25-year turn of the political wheel" from the 1990 polls held by the then Myanmarese military junta and won by a landslide by Aung San Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy (NLD). Shocked by her overwhelming victory, the military junta simply ignored the verdict and extended their repressive and insular rule. Over the next few years there was however a gradual realisation among the Myanmarese Armed Forces that there was need for a gradual change. There was another election of sorts in 2010 but that was not participated by the NLD. The end result was the formation of a quasi-civilian administration in 2011.
THE ISSUE OF CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT: This time round the opposition parties seeking to bring about changes initiated a process whereby they attempted to amend certain existing constitutional provisions ahead of an impending general election. The Constitution of Myanmar, it may be mentioned, grants the military automatic representation of at least 25 per cent of parliamentary seats, guarantees a military veto over any constitutional change, and ensures only the military's Commander-in-Chief controls appointments in key ministries. It also excludes any person from becoming president if their family members are foreigners. By most accounts, this prohibition was designed to prevent Suu Kyi, perhaps the most popular politician in the country, from ever becoming president - as her two sons hold British citizenship.
The vote on amending the constitution was held in two phases - on June 25 and July 09. The votes however failed to remove the army's veto over constitutional change, dealing a blow to hopes for fuller democracy. The bill received a majority of MPs' votes but not the 75 per cent needed to pass. Both chambers of parliament took part in the vote. This meant that 498 votes were needed to reach 75 per cent of the 664 lawmakers in total. The amendment bill could not be enacted upon, according to Parliament Speaker Shwe Mann, because the 388 votes in favour of change fell below the threshold needed for it to pass. Local media reported that more than 600 MPs were present for the vote. BBC's Jonah Fisher reporting from Yangon commented that although it was a secret ballot there was no doubt that the army had flexed its political muscle. The message was clear: despite four years of so-called reforms, Myanmar's military is still not ready to give up its grip on power.
Many view this as a major setback for Suu Kyi. But Myanmar expert Andrew McLeod of Oxford University argues that, if anything, her odds may have improved. He has commented that very little progress might have been made during the two-year constitutional review process that culminated in the two parliamentary votes - minor changes in the wording on presidential qualifications,  meagre new powers for the state and regional parliaments and granting of new legislative and revenue-raising powers to sub-national governments, etc. Nevertheless, the very fact that such voting could have taken place is itself a movement forward, he observed.
In this context, it may be recalled that until early 2013, it was technically a crime to critique the current constitution, and the mere mention of certain political ideals, like federalism, was treasonous. In this sense, public debate about changing the constitution has been a step forward by itself.
ARMY TIGHTENS ITS GRIP: Despite such optimism on the part of some, the army's grip appears to have tightened in Myanmar. On  August 13, Shwe Mann, parliament speaker and chairman of  the ruling Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP), was ousted from his party post by the country's President Thien Sein in a dramatic swoop. This measure apparently arose out of the in-fighting in the USDP. Both Shwe Mann and Thien Sein are former Generals who shed their uniforms to play central roles in Myanmar's evolving democratic process.
The USDP has served as a vehicle for transforming former junta figures into MPs. Thien Sein has now appointed Htay Oo, a former General, who was USDP general secretary, the new leader for the party. All this happened a day before the deadline for candidates to register to contest the upcoming polls.
Analysts are now suggesting that, through the latest step, the Army authorities have reiterated their aversion for any understanding that might have been evolving between Shwe Mann and Suu Kyi. Military lawmakers have also underlined that they have not appreciated the steps taken by Shwe Mann to create distance between him and the military regime of which he was a leader until 2011.
SUU KYI'S MESSAGE TO THE ELECTORATE: Suu Kyi, on the other hand, has suggested that this abrupt change in the ruling party has simplified her message to the electorate: "The military is holding up reforms - a vote for me is a vote for change".
Accordingly, it would appear that if Suu Kyi and her party, the National League for Democracy (NLD), secure electoral success in polls scheduled for November, pressure on the military to amend the Constitution and allow her to become President might not be as high as was expected two weeks ago. It would be pertinent to point out here that currently Myanmar's President is not popularly elected but is selected by an electoral college formed from parliamentarians voting to choose the President and two Vice-Presidents.
In this context, political analysts are also referring to another scenario. One of the possible measures that might be followed by the NLD would be tabling its own amendment Bill if it wins a big majority in the November election. It would then rely on the parliament convening only 'lame duck' sessions following the elections in December and January. They will then focus in late January, 2016 on changing the presidential qualifications through a two-step process that will require not only approval by parliament but also afterwards by the public through a referendum arranged by the Election Commission. Those close to Suu Kyi believe that after this, the military will change its stance to avoid public unrest and international pressure. Such a scenario can then lead to the appointment of a caretaker president while constitutional changes are implemented. This person could later step aside to clear the way for Suu Kyi's ascension to the presidency.
The dynamics referred to above is a possibility but does not appear to be very realistic because of several factors. The first relates to the gathering strength of nationalistic Buddhist monk movement which has waged an 18- month campaign to undermine NLD's support among the Buddhists who comprise close to two-thirds of Myanmar's population. The second refers to the mix of ethnic parties and minority ethnic groups, most of whom are anti-NLD. The third arises from the risk of voter intimidation, electoral maladministration or fraud with the military looking the other way.
COMMENTS OF MYANMAR'S SENIOR GENERAL: The expectations of the NLD have been dealt a severe blow also by the recent comments of Myanmar's Senior General Min Aung Hlaing, probably the most powerful man in Myanmar. Speaking in an interview with the BBC (reported on July 20), the General had an 'uncompromising message'. He made it very clear that there was still need for Myanmar's so-called "disciplined democracy" with its 'carefully limited space for debate and political activity'. His comments connoted that there was no immediate need to reduce the military's grip on Myanmar's political life and hand over power to a truly civilian administration.  Jonah Fisher, who carried out the interview, interpreted the General's comments as indicating that a true switch to a civilian rule will "need to wait, until ceasefires and peace deals have been concluded with all of Myanmar's many ethnic armed groups". This phase, according to the General, could take "five years or 10 years". Interesting indeed!
General Min Aung Hlaing has also said that he believes that the upcoming "election will be free and fair" and that he will respect the result. In this context, he was also asked whether he would like to be considered as a possible presidential candidate in 2016. His response was not very cautious or guarded. He pointed out that he would be retiring when he turns 60 next year but "the duty of the soldier is to serve the country in whatever role" he is asked to perform. Jonah Fisher has interpreted it as a "yes" in all but name.
Analysts have however pointed out that this might not be easy for Min Aung Hlaing. Whether he gets that chance will depend on how the November election turns out to be. It is true that a quarter of the parliament's seats (those selected from the Armed Forces) may already be under his control, but he will have to tackle the remaining 75 per cent. The military bloc will also need the support of at least a third of the elected MPs. This might prove to be quite difficult and he would then have to settle with the post of vice-president.
In the meantime, one thing is clear. The relationship of the ruling USDP with the military has soured in the last two years. This makes a partisan intervention less likely. In that event, USDP may face an electoral disaster. On the other hand, it is generally agreed that if the NLD falls short of a majority, then Thein Sein, the current president, might use his position to reach out to ethnic parties and secure a second term with their support. That would be quite a twist in the tale.

The writer, a former Ambassador, is an analyst specialised in foreign affairs, right to information and good governance. muhammadzamir0@gmail.com