Last week, there was a discussion on whether the Union constitution adopted in 2008—by questionable means―should be amended or rewritten.
Nobody had asked them whether they wanted it amended or rewritten.
The answer, had the question been asked, would have been unanimous: they all wanted a new one.
In fact, the new one had already been drafted and adopted by the pro-democracy (and procedural) EAOs, political parties and activist groups on 12 February 2008, 3 months before the popular referendum, based on the 8 guiding principles endorsed 3 years earlier:
Those who follow the country’s ongoing peace process which began in 2011 will notice that all these guiding principles have now become an integral part of the basic federal principles to be negotiated and adopted at the Union Peace Conference (UPC) also known as the 21st Century Panglong (21CP).
However, what is not part of it is the draft they had adopted 9 years earlier, a situation which go against their grain.
Someone then brought the following story to the discussion:
A man is left in the desert by his friends who have robbed him of everything including his horse. Not giving up, he travels on foot, usually at night, to conserve the water in his body.
On the third day, chirping of birds in the distance draws him to a small pool among some desert willows. The only problem is a coyote, long dead, is lying there.
He knows he has to make a choice:
His decision, after consideration, is to go through all the three given options:
First, he drags the dead coyote out of the water. Then he gathers sticks and build a fire. He scoops up some water with the pot he is carrying, covers it with charcoal from the fire, and boils it again. When it has boiled, he skims off the scum from the surface, adds more charcoal, lets it boil again, and again skims it.
After it has cooled down, he allows himself the first real drink in three days. In this way, he soon has a small supply of water, which he drinks while emptying the poisoned water in the pool. By the next nights, it is full with clean water again.
Three days later, he is back to civilization.
“So what happens next? A cowboy story never ends like this,” asked one of the participants.
The answer comes right back. “Of course, he has a showdown with his former friends, comes out on top, and takes back his possessions.”
“That’s what I want to hear,” he says.
Maybe we can follow the same procedure this fictional character went through in dealing with the constitutional issue?
Something to think about.
But the problem is the 2008 Military-drafted constitution is not a poisoned dead pool, it is a dead-end one way street where the military supremacy will reign with no federalism will have a chance to blossom. And as such wading along the NCA with an illusion that something might come out is not compatible with the happy ending story portrayed here.
Comments are closed.
This morning I listened to Daw Aung San Suu Kyi's speech- I have alrea ...
In Defence of Daw Aung San Suu By following the situation in Burma fo ...
A very fair and timely analysis indeed! ...
A nice little advice. But I doubt if it is going to be accepted even a ...
The Peace Process in Burma is never, ever going to be successful from ...
2016 Shan Herald Agency for News