Slorc’s Sham National Convention
By Aung Zaw November 01, 1993

Important questions remain unanswered in the ruling military junta’s Constitution for Burma. Aung Zaw comments.
 
After the 1988 uprising, Slorc surprised many by following through with national elections, but not before monks, students, politicians and top opposition leaders including Aung San Suu Kyi were thrown into jail.
 
In the 1990 elections, Burmese people showed clearly who they wanted as their leaders, and it was definitely not the military. The National League for Democracy won as landslide victory, while the military backed party, the NUP, won a miserable 2 per cent of the seats.
 
The road to the future seemed so straightforward for Burma. Nobody, including the most ignorant, would argue against the next natural step: hand over of power to the election winners. But they, the State Law and Order Restoration Council (Slorc) did not or would not. Instead, they publicly announced that they would stay in power for another 5 to 10 years. How they intended to do so soon became clear.
 
Order 1/90 was issued, which stated that power would be handed over to the new government when a new Constitution is drafted. Then in 1992 Slorc established the National Convention Convening Commission which comprised mostly of Slorc’s khaki leaders, including Maj Gen Myo Nyunt, head of the Commission, Commander of Rangoon Division and Minister of Religious Affairs.
 
Its task was to handpick candidates to attend a National Convention to draw up guidelines for drafting a Constitution­a Slorc engineered Constitution.
 
In January this year, the National Convention began. All the delegates were selected by Slorc. Prior to the convention, the delegates and the public were informed by Slorc-owned media what the ruling military junta expected of the convention: to rubber-stamp its intention to play a leading role in Burma’s future politics.
 
In fact, it was expressly stated in Clause Number Six of the six objectives laid down by Slorc­to ensure the military a leading role in the national political leadership of the state.
 
The European Community boycotted the convention and countries like the US and Australia sent their lower-level officials. Burmese opposition groups and Burma support groups around the world protested against the junta-organized National Convention and called it a “sham”. In Rangoon and other major cities around Burma, some arrests were carried out by the Military Intelligence just before and during the National Convention. Independent sources said that about 100 people were arrested.
 
To counter the Slorc sponsored convention, the National Council of the Union of Burma, comprising of ethnic nationalities and exiled politicians, held a joint-meeting at Manerplaw to denounce the convention.
 
Then came the surprise; or was it a trick? The convention was suddenly adjourned just two days after it convened in Rangoon, purportedly to allow delegates sufficient time for appropriate study. Some said it was unplanned but the Working People’s Daily ran an article denying rumours that the adjournment was the result of a hitch. When the convention was reconvened in February, it lasted only one day. This was how an official in Rangoon described it: “there is no meeting today… delegates are taking a rest or going out for sightseeing or shopping in the market.” They failed to hold a meeting again.
 
In August, Slorc arrested two opposition members who attended the convention for criticizing the junta to fellow delegates attending the convention. During the National Convention some people walked out and a delegate fled to the border area and joined the opposition groups. He told the pres that restrictions on delegates were severe and denounced the convention as a “disgusting sham”.
 
Up to September, the convention has been adjourned five times. The last adjournment was on September 16­the delegates will be meeting again on 17 January 1994. Rumours were rife that Slorc was facing a lot of opposition from its hand-picked delegates, resulting in frequent adjournments. However, despite these apparent hitches, the principal guidelines towards drafting a Constitution were approved by the convention, and all in the military’s favour: an elected general-president, leading role for the military in future coups. The military appeared well in control at this stage.
 
What then would be its next move? In 1973, the Revolutionary Council which staged a coup in 1962 completed a Constitution and called for a referendum. Elections were then held for the Pyithu Hluttaw (People’s Assembly) in 1974. The Revolutionary Council then dissolved itself and transferred power to the Pyithu Hluttaw. Is history going to repeat itself twenty years later? It would be interesting to see what will happen in 1994.
 
Although the elected representatives of the 1990 elections have yet to form a government inside Burma, their term of office will end in 1994.Will Slorc complete the referendum and new election? This time, will it transfer power to a new government, but with its leading role firmly secured? Or Slorc try and engineer and election that will be in its favour? On the other hand, it is not impossible that it may face unexpected opposition from the delegates, which may force Slorc to an indefinite adjournment. Such predictions appear very pessimistic for Burmese people who have been waiting for years for freedom and peace in Burma.
 
However, things in Burma are never predictable. The apparent conflict between the moderates and hardliners within the military may bring about unexpected outcomes, especially with Burma’s dictator, Ne Win, believed to be sick in bed. Moreover, the external pressure for Burma to adopt reforms, might force Slorc to soften its approach or adopt a more acceptable Constitution.
 
The Burmese people, upon whose mandate the Constitution rests, are skeptical of the national convention. How will Slorc plan to get the people to accept the new Constitution that is drafted all in its favour? Will the unhappiness and resentment result in another uprising? Even if Slorc manages to push through with its plans, many problems will remain unresolved.
 
For instance, what will Slorc do with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and the other political prisoners? Are they going to be detained in jail indefinitely? How will they settle the issue of the 1990 election results? What are they going to do about the civil war this is presently raging in Burma?
 
The Nation, Monday, November 1, 1993