{"id":8084,"date":"2026-10-17T12:25:16","date_gmt":"2026-10-17T12:25:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/myanmarmuslim.news\/en\/?p=8084"},"modified":"2026-10-17T13:20:29","modified_gmt":"2026-10-17T13:20:29","slug":"myanmar-63-states-or-just-the-equal-citizenship-for-everyone-meaningful-self-determination-for-ethnic-nationalities-and-constitutional-safeguards-against-domination-by-any-ethnic-or-religious-major","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/myanmarmuslim.news\/en\/2026\/10\/17\/myanmar-63-states-or-just-the-equal-citizenship-for-everyone-meaningful-self-determination-for-ethnic-nationalities-and-constitutional-safeguards-against-domination-by-any-ethnic-or-religious-major\/","title":{"rendered":"Myanmar 63 States? Or Just the Equal citizenship for everyone, meaningful self-determination for ethnic nationalities, and constitutional safeguards against domination by any ethnic or religious majority"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Equal citizenship for everyone, meaningful self-determination for ethnic nationalities, and constitutional safeguards against domination by any ethnic or religious majority.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The strongest feature of Augustus Linn\u2019s argument is that federalism should be designed around the people who live in a territory, rather than treating every ethnic group as if it must be confined to one exclusive homeland. Your earlier article adds an essential safeguard: equality for all citizens must coexist with additional protections for ethnic nationalities whose languages, cultures, identities and political representation need protection.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I would preserve the original author\u2019s main ideas, while making clear that his proposed number of federal units, population thresholds and territorial arrangements are proposals for public discussion, not settled facts or an agreed constitutional blueprint. I would also distinguish between federalism, which shares constitutional powers between levels of government, and confederalism, which generally gives constituent political units a much looser common structure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Here is my recommended integrated English version for MMNN. I have translated and condensed the Burmese post, combined it with your earlier article, retained the constructive federalism proposals, and added safeguards for smaller ethnic communities, Muslims, Rohingya and other citizens who could otherwise be overlooked.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Suggested format: MMNN English opinion article \u00b7 Edited and fact-checked for publication \u00b7 Adapted from Augustus Linn\u2019s Burmese-language post dated 12 February 2025<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Rethinking Myanmar\u2019s Federal Future: Equal Federal Units, Ethnic Self-Determination and Equal Rights for All<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

A proposed federal settlement must protect ethnic nationalities without creating new minorities who are denied equality, dignity or political representation.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By Dr Ko Ko Gyi | Myanmar Muslims News Network (MMNN)<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Inspired by and adapted from the Burmese-language post \u201c63 States\u201d by Augustus Linn,<\/em><\/strong> dated 12 February 2025, and developed in conjunction with MMNN\u2019s earlier article, <\/em>\u201cFederal or Confederal Myanmar: Equal Rights for All, with Additional Safeguards for Ethnic Nationalities\u201d<\/em><\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Introduction: Federalism Must Deliver Justice, Not Merely Redraw Maps<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Myanmar\u2019s long-running political crisis raises a fundamental question: how can we build a democratic Union in which ethnic nationalities enjoy meaningful self-determination while every citizen receives equal protection, regardless of ethnicity, religion, ancestry or language?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For decades, Myanmar has suffered from centralised domination, armed conflict, ethnic mistrust, religious discrimination and disputes over territory and natural resources. A future settlement must address these problems at their roots rather than simply redistribute power among competing political and military organisations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The central principle should be straightforward:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Equal rights for every citizen. Meaningful self-determination for ethnic nationalities. Additional safeguards for historically disadvantaged communities. No domination by any majority, whether national or regional.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Augustus Linn\u2019s proposal offers an opportunity to examine how Myanmar might organise its future federal units more fairly. His central argument is that a complicated hierarchy of regions, states and self-administered areas could be replaced by a more coherent system of federal units enjoying constitutionally defined powers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The objective should not be to impose a finished map on Myanmar\u2019s diverse population. It should be to establish fair principles and a democratic process through which the people themselves can decide their future.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

1. Should Myanmar Have More Federal Units?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Augustus Linn uses the expression \u201c63 States\u201d to challenge conventional assumptions about how Myanmar\u2019s federal territory should be organised. The number is a proposal for discussion, not an established or agreed figure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

His argument is that a Union divided into several categories of territorial administration may reproduce inequality. If one community enjoys a full federal state while another receives only a subordinate self-administered area, the latter may reasonably question whether its political status is genuinely equal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

He therefore proposes considering federal units with equal constitutional standing, drawing inspiration from the general principle of equality among the states of the United States and the cantons of Switzerland.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is a useful starting point, although neither country offers a model that Myanmar could simply copy. Their constitutional histories, political institutions and social conditions differ considerably from Myanmar\u2019s.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The relevant lesson is that federal arrangements should clearly define the powers of each level of government and protect those powers through the constitution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A future Myanmar could consider giving its federal units equal constitutional status while allowing differences in population, territory, language, administrative structure and local circumstances.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Equality of constitutional status does not mean that every unit must have identical populations, budgets, boundaries or administrative responsibilities. Nor does it automatically settle how representation in a federal parliament should be allocated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

These questions require careful constitutional design.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The objective is to prevent a hierarchy in which some communities are permanently treated as politically superior to others.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2. Every Ethnic Nationality Deserves a Fair Opportunity for Self-Government<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Myanmar\u2019s ethnic diversity extends far beyond the communities traditionally associated with its existing states.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ta\u2019ang, Pa-O, Kokang, Wa, Lahu, Lisu, Shan-ni, Naga, Dawei, Yaw, Intha, Kayan, Danu and other communities have their own histories, identities, languages and political aspirations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The precise arrangements each community may require are matters for consultation and negotiation. It would be premature to assume that every group necessarily wants a separate state or that all would agree on the same constitutional formula.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nevertheless, no community should be denied meaningful self-government merely because it is smaller than another group or has historically been placed within a larger administrative unit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Where a community has a sufficiently strong, democratically expressed aspiration for territorial autonomy, that aspiration deserves serious consideration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Possible arrangements could include a full federal state, an autonomous district, a self-governing region or another constitutionally protected unit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The choice should depend on local circumstances, the wishes of the people concerned, administrative viability, geographical realities and the protection of neighbouring communities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Equal constitutional dignity should not depend exclusively on the size of a population or the strength of an armed organisation.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

At the same time, the creation of additional federal units must be economically and administratively sustainable. Smaller units would require fair revenue-sharing, access to public services, accountable institutions and appropriate support from the Union.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The aim is not to create as many borders as possible. It is to ensure that territorial arrangements serve the people rather than forcing people to serve an inherited administrative map.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

3. Ethnic Federalism and Geographic Federalism Need Not Be Opposites<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

One of the most difficult questions is whether federal units should be named and organised primarily around ethnic identities or geographical and administrative boundaries.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Both approaches have potential advantages and risks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

An ethnic state can affirm a community\u2019s history, identity and right to self-government. However, if the state government treats its titular ethnic group as the only legitimate owner of the territory, other residents may become second-class citizens.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A geographically named state may encourage a shared territorial identity. However, a geographical name alone cannot guarantee genuine autonomy, fair representation or protection against centralised domination.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The real question is not merely what a state is called.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Who controls its legislature, government, public finances, land administration, natural resources and security institutions? Can local people elect and remove their leaders? Can smaller communities preserve their languages and cultures? Are their fundamental rights enforceable?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A geographical state can be authoritarian, just as an ethnic state can be discriminatory. Conversely, either arrangement can work democratically if its institutions are fair and accountable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A practical compromise may be to allow communities to choose appropriate state names, official languages and cultural policies through democratic procedures, while guaranteeing the equal rights of all residents.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A state could recognise the historical identity of a particular nationality without claiming that every person living there must belong to that nationality.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Territorial self-government should protect a community\u2019s identity, not turn that identity into a licence to dominate others.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

4. One Ethnic Group May Live Across Several Federal Units<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ethnic identity and territorial boundaries do not always coincide.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A community may constitute a majority in more than one federal unit. Conversely, a single unit may contain several communities of comparable size.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Augustus Linn points to areas associated with different Shan communities as examples of how a broader ethnic family may be prominent in multiple units. He also mentions Kutkai, where Ta\u2019ang, Kachin, Shan and other communities would need to be considered when determining local arrangements.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Such examples illustrate why a rigid rule of \u201cone ethnic group, one state\u201d may be impractical.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Boundaries should reflect the wishes and circumstances of the people concerned, rather than assumptions that every ethnic nationality occupies one exclusive, clearly defined territory.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Historical settlement, present-day population distribution, local preferences, economic links, transport routes and access to public services should all be considered.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Reliable demographic information and meaningful local consultation would be essential. Where population figures are disputed or incomplete, independent assessment and transparent procedures would help prevent competing groups from manipulating statistics to justify territorial claims.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In some places, a shared federal unit may be the fairest solution. Elsewhere, a smaller autonomous unit or a different arrangement may be more appropriate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There should be no presumption that every territorial disagreement must end with one side winning and the other losing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

5. Let the People Decide Their Local Arrangements<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Augustus Linn proposes that federal units should be organised around the people living in a territory rather than being determined exclusively by ethnic classifications.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Under this approach, residents would elect their state or unit legislatures, which could determine local arrangements within constitutional limits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

These might include:<\/p>\n\n\n\n