Why bullets may not work in Myanmar

The military’s mass killing of protesters focuses democracy advocates to search for legitimacy by forging consensus on a new constitution.

Reuters
Protesters in Yangon, Myanmar, hold posters last month reading "Amend the 2008 constitution" in support of constitutional reform.

To show that it alone holds sovereign power in Myanmar, the military has killed nearly 500 protesters since a coup two months ago. Many of the elected civilian politicians, such as Aung San Suu Kyi, are either in jail or in hiding. While the rain of bullets by soldiers has brought global condemnation, it also suggests the military brass knows its claim of authority is hollow. One reason: The legitimacy to rule in Myanmar could be rising elsewhere.

In recent days, members of the pro-democracy opposition have teamed up with some of Myanmar’s minority ethnic groups to write a new draft constitution, far from the eyes of military spies. This grassroots movement wants to replace the military-drafted 2008 constitution. While that document allowed some civilian rule since 2011, it kept much of the power in the army’s hands – including the ability to amend the document. When the military’s own party lost an election in November to Ms. Aung San Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy, it decided that even that limited charter had to go.

The Feb. 1 coup exposed the military’s false logic. To most people in Myanmar, power derives from the consent of the governed. That means the constitution itself must arise from individuals who want to protect their unalienable rights. Those rights already exist and can be neither created nor lost. The military believes it can simply kill away that idea.

Democracy advocates in Myanmar have learned from other countries that constitutions must be a bottom-up collective enterprise. In Belarus, for example, months of protests following a bogus election last August have led to a popular movement to rewrite the constitution as one way to oust the dictator, Alexander Lukashenko. In Chile, years of protests over economic inequality led to a referendum last year to initiate a civilian-led process of writing a new political framework and social compact. In Haiti, thousands of people took to the streets Sunday to defend their country’s constitution and reject an attempt by President Jovenel Moïse to amend it for his own purposes.

Many countries are trying to define sovereign power. They rely on unchanging, guiding principles such as the equality of all persons. The 17th-century philosopher John Locke said humanity must live by a “law of nature” based on each person’s ability to reason. That law, he added, originated by “one omnipotent, and infinitely wise maker.”

The real news in Myanmar is not the rising death toll but the rise of individuals reaffirming their ability to self-govern by writing a new social compact. Constitutions that liberate and endure are not just words. They are the result of people discovering the source of true sovereignty.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.