L’ASSASSINIO DELL’AVVOCATO KO NI

In una dichiarazione rilasciata subito dopo l’assassinio dell’avvocato Ko Ni, avvenuto domenica 29 gennaio all’aeroporto di Yangon, l’LND descrive Ko Ni come un elemento chiave dell’entourage di Aung San Suu Kyi, definendolo “insostituibile”.

La dichiarazione si conclude con queste parole: “Denunciamo con forza questo assassinio come un atto terroristico rivolto contro la politica dell’LND.”

In questa intervista del 1 febbraio 2016, ad un mese dall’insediamento del nuovo governo del Myanmar, uscito dalle elezioni del novembre 2015, l’avvocato Ko Ni spiega come i comandi militari detengano di fatto il governo di tutti gli aspetti della vita civile del paese.

A livello istituzionale lo strumento principale che consente ai generali di tenere sotto controllo l’intera Birmania è il General Administration Department (GAD) che rappresenta la spina dorsale dell’amministrazione locale di tutto il territorio. Il GAD ricade sotto il Ministero per gli Affari Interni che, a norma della Costituzione, è diretto da un generale dell’esercito.

Il GAD è in grado di penetrare ad ogni livello: da quello statale a quello regionale e giù, giù, fino ai singoli villaggi.

Istituito nel 1972, il GAD garantisce al comandante delle forze armate il controllo diretto, centralizzato su tutti gli organi di governo, fino ai livelli più bassi.  Questo meccanismo pone l’interrogativo se la Lega Nazionale per la Democrazia riuscirà ad avere un effettivo controllo sulla macchina governativa.

Question: What needs to be done to address the decades-old problem of bad governance in Myanmar?

Answer: The former military leader Ne Win formulated a general administration system that is controlled by a single government agency (the GAD). All the 14 states and regions’ civil services are under the management of Ministry of Home Affairs. The same practice was kept up by the military government after the 1988 coup.

In accordance with the 2008 Constitution, there are 15 governments – the central government and the 14 state and region governments. It is a seemingly liberal administration system for respective states and regions without obvious controls of the central government.

But actually the whole country is administered by the General Administration Department and the Myanmar Police Force, which are under the Ministry of Home Affairs. Its minister is appointed by the military chief. So, all the levels of the administration system are under the authority of the military chief.

Q: There are elected officials in some of the local government units, such as on village level, working alongside the GAD, but it seems the GAD handles most of the governing and has the most authority. Is that correct? 

A: Yes, this is a highly centralised system of government. Actually, the state and region parliaments elect their government members and have their own chief ministers (appointed by the president).

States and regions should be able to appoint their civil service staff, as well as police members. And then they would not have to depend on the central government and could control a lot of administration processes. Their respective ministries could find budget for their own government.

But as the central government is currently taking power on these processes (through the GAD), the (state and regions’) local ministries have no authority in their own areas.

Q: What should the new government do with regards to reforming the GAD if it wants to create a real federal union?

A: Most of the military members, the government and our NLD party now want to develop our country with a federal administration system. In doing so, the whole administration system must be changed. The control of General Administration Department on all the government procedures is contrary to the federal system and should be abolished.

Q: Some say at least parts of the 2008 Constitution meet the norms of a federal system. Is that right?

A: It cannot be said the 2008 Constitution has some norms of a federal system. It completely lacks federal practices. It is just a fake ‘federal constitution’ because it does not grant full authority of administration to state and regional governments.

The Constitution said the local governments are responsible for supporting the central government’s efforts to ensure peace and rule of law. In fact, (in case of a federal union) the central government must not intervene in the administration of local governments at all. But the central government now has full authority over the whole country and the local government lacks real power.