The Road to Naypyidaw

April 26, 2012, 8:49 am

NAYPYIDAW, Myanmar — The 43 seats of Parliament that Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and the other newly elected members of her National League for Democracy (N.L.D.) were supposed to fill on Monday remain empty. After winning by-elections by a landslide earlier this month, the Lady and her party are refusing to show up for their first legislative session in protest over having to take a pledge to “safeguard” the 2008 Constitution.
Myanmar’s Constitution grants the military vast powers in the country’s purportedly civilian and democratic institutions. Twenty-five percent of the seats in Parliament are set aside for members of the army. Since any change to the Constitution requires a 75 percent majority, the quota in effect gives the military veto power over the amendment process.
The N.L.D. had boycotted parliamentary elections in 2010 partly because of a similar oath of allegiance required under the party-registration law in force at the time. This past November, after consultations with Aung San Suu Kyi and President Thein Sein, Parliament agreed to ask instead that candidates vow to “respect” the Constitution. But it left untouched the oath of office required of legislators.
In this untested quasi-democratic system, Aung San Suu Kyi has few arms but principles and values. But is she overplaying her hand by taking such a firm position on the small, if symbolic, matter of the oath? The tiff is already calling into question whether she and the the N.L.D. stand a chance of changing the system from within and of making headway on more important and more controversial issues.

Members of the ruling Union Solidarity and Development Party (U.S.D.P.), which controls about 55 percent of Parliament, greeted the N.L.D.’s absence on Monday with a mix of indifference and elation. After enduring the sight of Aung San Suu Kyi campaigning to adoring crowds across the country throughout the year and suffering an astounding defeat earlier this month — the N.L.D. won 43 of the 45 seats contested — they are now relishing the fact that it’s the N.L.D. that’s keeping itself out of Parliament.
“More than 1,000 MPs elected in the 2010 elections took the same oath of office. Why should that be changed now just for the new 43 MPs?” asked Aung Thaung, an influential U.S.D.P. member who was a high-ranking member of the previous military regime and is suspected of organizing a brutal attack on Aung San Suu Kyi’s motorcade in northern Myanmar in 2003.
The Lady is picking a fight? Why not stare her down? Rewording the oath will likely require some onerous steps: a constitutional amendment, massive approval in Parliament, perhaps even a national referendum. The N.L.D. had hoped that President Thein Sein could talk the Constitutional Court into changing the controversial wording, but the court demurred, claiming that its role is to interpret, not change, the Constitution.
This leaves both sides in a tricky situation. The government is in good standing with the international community these days; on Monday it was rewarded for a slew of recent reforms with the formal easing of many long-standing sanctions. But a protracted standoff would undermine its still-fragile legitimacy. And it could cast doubt over President Thein Sein’s recent promise that ”there won’t be any u-turn” in the democratization process.
The stakes may be higher still for the N.L.D. Many people here are bewildered by the oath issue: what, exactly, is the difference between “safeguarding” and “respecting” the Constitution, and is it worth fighting over? If the party refuses to back down on a matter this trivial, it risks losing the public’s heartfelt support, which is its greatest political asset.
The Lady’s party apparently has no clear strategy for getting out of this impasse other than to await a benign intervention from President Thein Sein with the U.S.D.P.
Score 1 for top-down reform. Score 0 for the Burmese Spring.

By SWE WIN