The F Word, or On the Assassination of U Ko Ni

Federalism, or governing both centrally and through local administrations, struggles as a concept here in Myanmar. Sharing power has been discussed on and off for decades. In practice, control and returns from natural resources have never been well distributed between the union and state governments.

Chief ministers for each state and region are appointed from a distance rather than elected by local populations. Taxes, to the extent they are collected transparently at all, must be deposited at the union level before being reallocated. Services such as education and health have rarely been funded or administered locally. As a result, in many areas of the country governance and revenues are contested by people who back their claims with weapons.

Regional and ethnic leaders, as part of peace discussions, have proposed constitutional changes. They see federalism as an opportunity to create a unified country with diverse parts. The central government’s military perceives that federalism would erode both its sovereignty and its profits.

Amidst these challenges and conversations came a political assassination this past Sunday. The death of U Ko Ni, a lawyer who pushed for constitutional reform, is a blow to anyone aiming to create a Myanmar where benefits are shared fairly and where local cultures and histories are maintained. He argued frequently for peaceful protest, against hate speech, and in a spirit of people’s participation.

At the time he was gunned down, U Ko Ni had been serving the new government as its most important legal mind on questions related to religion and race. His own father was a Muslim from India, while his mother was a Burmese Buddhist. He held many views considered threatening to the powers that be. Specifically, he believed that the country’s constitution should be replaced, in part because under it federalism could never truly take root.

The 2008 Constitution, which the military leaders of the country designed and treasure, falls far short of what international observers consider a reasonable standard for collaborative governance. Critics accuse the document, among many other flaws, of failing to grant equal rights to all races and religions. The news of U Ko Ni’s death has thus stirred not only debate about constitutional reform and self-determination but also religious freedom.

There are many federalisms around the globe. I’m not clear which of them, if any, are right for Myanmar’s situation. What I am clear about is that this murder was heartbreaking. One commentator said that the bullet that killed U Ko Ni also “hit the constitution.”