Humanity's desire to capture the essence of society in a single document manifests in constitutions. These texts are crafted with noble aspirations, genuine hopes, and faith that words can bind the future to our present conception of justice.

A constitution represents humanity's most curious invention—a document designed to outlive its authors, to speak with authority to unborn generations, and to constrain the very power it establishes. Created in moments of crisis or clarity, we hope these words may prove wiser than we ourselves could be.

Consider America's founding experiment beginning with those seductive words: "We the People." Three words performing conceptual alchemy—making the dead speak for the living and conjuring unity from discord. What faith this requires in language itself!

Constitutionalism carries quasi-religious undertones—a belief in principles transcending ordinary politics. Constitutions metaphorically create what the Greeks called a temenos: sacred space demarcated from daily affairs. In our secular age, they become secular scripture. Yet constitutional drafting contains inherent melancholy. The need for such documents acknowledges humanity's darker nature—that power intoxicates, majorities tyrannize, and today's justice may become tomorrow's oppression. Thus constitutions embody profound pessimism about human nature.

Different traditions manifest this tension differently. American constitutionalism embraces the paradox of using state power to limit state power through checks and balances. The British tradition trusts unwritten customs over codified text. Post-colonial constitutions struggle to reconcile Western frameworks with indigenous legal traditions. What unites these approaches is recognizing the need to distinguish ordinary law from fundamental principles. Constitutionalism answers Plato's enduring question: How might we be governed by reason rather than human caprice?

Yet constitutions don't interpret themselves. They require human actors to breathe life into clauses—to define "equal protection" or "due process" in contexts their authors never imagined. Herein lies the irony: documents meant to constrain human judgment ultimately depend entirely upon it.

Debates between "originalism" and "living constitutionalism" mirror theological disputes—arguments about how to read sacred texts, the relationship between dead and living, whether wisdom resides more in past or present. Nonetheless, there are more or less features of adjusting things to our lives. Take a look again to famous US Constitution. "We the People", at that time, was actually for a number of people but it today try to be inclusive.

Constitutionalism fascinates as our boldest attempt to solve time's problem in politics—creating institutions that bend without breaking, principles that endure yet adapt. Constitutions represent messages in bottles to descendants: "Here's what we learned about justice and governance. We hope it helps."

Let me be clear. The effectiveness of a constitution goes beyond its written words, depending heavily on the practical mechanisms established for its enforcement. While judicial review, citizen oversight, and independent commissions are designed to uphold constitutional principles, their success varies significantly across different political landscapes. In established democracies like Germany, judicial review has proven effective, but in less stable nations, it's often undermined by authoritarianism or corruption. Citizen oversight and independent commissions can be ineffective due to apathy or resource scarcity. Legislative manipulation, like in Myanmar, also disgustingly weakens constitutions. Cultural, historical, and political factors hinder constitutional success. Achieving tangible governance from constitutional principles requires constant vigilance, strong institutions, and active citizens, recognizing the inherent difficulty of humans enforcing rules on themselves.

At our most honest, we recognize constitutions as acts of faith—in language, reason, and principles that might transcend history's vicissitudes. They embody our highest aspirations while acknowledging our deepest fears. In a changing world, they offer the comforting illusion of constancy—fixed points from which to build just societies.

The concept of "135 ethnic group" is said to aim to demonstrate multi-ethnic and multi-cultural coexistence and unity, but in reality, it is a political concept intended to deconstruct indigenous nations and assimilate them under a single national identity, that of the Bamar/Myanmar. It is a concept that reduces political heritage to cultural groups.

In his book, "The Conditions of Diversity in Multinational Democracies," political scientist McRoberts states that many countries tend to reduce their internal nations to "ethnic groups" rather than recognizing them as national communities. In Myanmar, successive authoritarian regimes have used similar strategies. For example, in Myanmar, large ethnic groups that were previously ruled by monarchies were given the name "major ethnic groups," but this term was never clearly defined. General Aung San himself attempted to define this term in conjunction with "Nation," but stated that a proper Burmese dictionary was needed for a satisfactory definition.

The list of 135 ethnic groups has many problems. For example:

1. The detailed division of Karens into White Karen, Sgaw, Mon Karen, etc., means that it can no longer be called a list of national communities (Nations).
   
2. The Chin ethnic groups are counted up to 53 types, conflating languages and parental lineages.
   
3. Some ethnic groups have overlapping names with two different designations.
   
4. The forced counting of the Bamar ethnicity as 9 types, is considered a matter of astrology, as 1+3+5=9. (to align Burmese astrology The Holy Number of 9)
   
5. This list is neither a list of national communities, nor a list of ethnic groups, nor a list of languages, and cannot be clearly defined.
   

The political existence of this concept has led to several consequences:

1. To fragment indigenous groups formations/to aid in "divide and rule."
   
2. To make national communities with their own political formations loyal only to the Union of Myanmar.
3. To create narrative stories for central government legitimacy.
4. To reduce the self-determination and historical rights of indigenous peoples under the name of "Bamar also being an indigenous ethnicity."
5. To assimilate the distinct characteristics and cultures of indigenous peoples.

Professor James C. Scott states that indigenous peoples, not only in Myanmar but elsewhere, have devised various methods to resist the dominance of mainstream culture and central governments since ancient times. They have developed their own writing systems. This action enables:

1. The preservation of their culture and language.
2. Freedom from state control.
3. Strengthening of distinct characteristics.
4. Becoming a symbol of resistance against the state's standardized writing system.
5. The ability to resist state centralization and information gathering.
   

Indigenous peoples' writing systems play a more important role than just a simple communication tool. It becomes a unique form of political resistance. Literature serves social purposes:

1. Cultural purposes:
   • Recording and preserving the history and traditions of the ethnicity.
   • Passing on traditional culture and arts to future generations.
   • Enabling systematic teaching and learning of the mother tongue.
   • Preserving unique identities and symbols.
2. Political purposes:
   • Resisting the cultural assimilation of the central government.
   • Symbolizing self-determination and freedom.
   • Promoting unity within the ethnicity.
   • Freeing from state information control.
3. Social purposes:
   • Building a communication network within the ethnicity.
   • Exchanging knowledge and ideas.
   • Educating future generations.
     
   • Strengthening the unity of the social community.

The concept of "135 ethnic groups" is a political weapon intended to weaken indigenous peoples by fragmenting them and reducing their political rights. This is not a personal problem but an institutional problem.

The main points here are:

1. Attempts to assimilate the unique identities and political heritage of ethnic groups often encounter resistance.
2. This resistance is not only the right thing to do but also a moral choice.
   
3. Indigenous peoples tend to find innovative ways to protect their rights.
   
4. Literary culture can be an important weapon for political liberation.
5. Mechanisms that strengthen ethnic unity and national identity play an important role in the political struggle and are unavoidable moral resistances.

Therefore, in the future of indigenous peoples, they will continue to strive to build a modern and developed federal democratic system while preserving their unique identities. Their culture and literature will continue to play an important role in this journey.
Infographic courtesy from "The Art of Not Being Legible" by Piers Kelly.

Recently, it has become common to declare democracy in retreat, citing the rise of populist leaders and democratic authoritarians. However, a deeper examination reveals a more complex picture. Democracies—including the United States—continue to function within their constitutional frameworks. The election of figures like Donald Trump and other populists worldwide does not necessarily signal the decline of democracy itself but rather exposes a widening disconnect between political institutions and public needs.

One key driver of this disconnect is the growing chasm between governing elites and the everyday experiences of citizens. Political institutions—parties, bureaucracies, and traditional norms—often appear distant and unresponsive. Economic inequality, fueled by globalization and technological change, has deepened public alienation. This detachment extends beyond material concerns: many feel like mere cogs in an impersonal system, stripped of purpose in their work and communities. This isolation epidemic manifests in addiction crises, declining civic engagement, and growing cynicism about governance. When wealth and power concentrate in the hands of a few, people naturally question whether their leaders truly act in the public interest.

Another critical factor is the nature of political representation. Elected officials, caught in a cycle of campaigning, fundraising, and party maneuvering, often appear more accountable to their own agendas or special interests than to their constituents. This perception erodes trust in democratic processes and creates fertile ground for populists who promise to "return power to the people."

The rapid pace of information dissemination further complicates the landscape. Traditional institutions struggle to keep up with the volatility of public discourse. Social media amplifies outrage over reasoned debate, accelerating polarization. Meanwhile, repeated failures of institutions to address socioeconomic problems and material conditions deepen disillusionment. When standard democratic mechanisms appear ineffective, people seek alternatives. This shift is evident in the increased reliance on judicial intervention on administration, declining trust in legislatures, and the appeal of "effective" democratic authoritarians who claim to bypass bureaucracy in pursuit of decisive action.

Crucially, even when electorates choose authoritarian-leaning leaders, these decisions often occur within democratic frameworks. Those who romanticize democracy as inherently self-correcting should take note: democracy is not a panacea. It has never been flawless, and to recognize its limitations only now is shortsighted. Democracy must be constantly recalibrated, guided by a shared vision of the common good, liberty, security, and rights. It is childish to think that democracy is always good and it is not democracy if it is not delivering. At the same time, the Iron Law of Oligarchy reminds us that even well-intended institutions, when left unchecked, can be captured and exploited. Continuous scrutiny and the development of public reason are essential.

Misdiagnosing the problem invites misguided solutions. In conclusion, the anxieties surrounding a supposed "retreat of democracy" are more accurately understood as a symptom of a significant institutional disconnect. This analysis reveals that the enduring strength of democratic frameworks is being tested not by their outright rejection, but by their perceived failure to adequately address the needs and aspirations of the populace. Bridging this gap requires more than simply defending past norms; it demands a proactive and continuous effort to recalibrate institutions, foster genuine representation, and cultivate a public sphere grounded in reason and mutual understanding. The future of democracy hinges not on romanticizing the word "democracy" or its past, but on the active and engaged work of adapting its structures to meet the challenges of the present and the demands of the future.

During the colonial era, the term "Burmanization" was initially used by the British as a simple process. It aimed to make the administrative machinery more practical for locals by utilizing the Burmese people and customs. However, over time, this process evolved into a more complex and deliberate strategy. Today, Burmanization refers to a pressured process of imposing Burmese identity across the entire country, forcing indigenous nations to prioritize Burmese history, identity, and way of life. It has become a state-sponsored process of pressuring non-Burmese cultures, languages, political heritage, and symbols to exist under the dominance of Burmese heritage and culture.
The core of Burmanization cannot be separated from centralization. Centralization refers not only to political power but also to monopolizing the authority to use violence, monopoly of economic power, and monopoly of control over historical narratives. Through these methods, power becomes concentrated in the hands of the military and a few elites. The state that promotes Burmanization policies uses culture as a tool to strengthen their authority.
When Burmanized, non-Burmese indigenous peoples become Burmese, but may not be fully so. This increases social capital for the Burmese population. Speaking Burmese and having Burmese identity becomes economic capital and value. Burmese people understand the language of the law better and have more advantages. They dominate in culture and history. A Burmese person doesn't need to validate their existence. The history taught in school doesn't differ much from what they learn at home. Social networks, friends, understanding, and processes like taking matriculation exams in Burmese language or obtaining ID cards are accessible without much effort. These benefits exist to varying degrees.
The methods of Burmanization range from literature, video, music, art, and educational materials to establishing social "standards" and "routines." Additionally, migrant workers and economic influences support this process. In this way, the state suppresses indigenous ethnic identities and appropriates their traditional cultures. As a result, indigenous nations become disconnected from their history, economically disadvantaged, faced with land seizures and human trafficking, and socially fragmented.
Burmanization not only changes cultural expressions but also transforms the basic infrastructure of society. It weakens traditional governance systems and removes challenges to state sovereignty, making it easier to resolve legal issues related to land and resources. When the state seizes land, people are trafficked while seeking work in other countries. When working in other regions, the weak are trampled like in the law of the jungle. As indigenous peoples' rights weaken, the state gains easier access to natural resources like minerals, timber, and water. This leads to economic exploitation and resource extraction.
Let's list some points:

• Land seizure and territorial control - Abolishing indigenous peoples' land rights makes it easier for the state to seize land.
• Resource extraction rights - Unclear land regulations allow the state and companies to easily extract natural resources.
  
• Removing power challenges - Replacing traditional governance systems reduces forces resisting state control.
  
• Political centralization - The state can consolidate power without negotiating with autonomous groups.
• Simplified legal system - Using a single official system eliminates the need for contracts with multiple ethnic groups.
• Cultural and language abolition - The country's costs for maintaining diverse languages and cultures decrease.
• Social identity control - The state's categorization of ethnic groups reduces their collective resistance.
• Labor force - Indigenous peoples enter low-wage jobs and support the basic economic foundation, yet their labor isn't adequately recognized.
  
• Reduced ethnic land rights - Weakened cultural memories make it harder to reclaim lost lands.
• Normalizing Burmese influence - The state's singular identity becomes normal, and ethnic diversity is left behind.
  
• Weakening resistance movements - Cultural discontinuity breaks resistance based on historical foundations.
• Propaganda in education - The state's education system replaces indigenous knowledge with state values.
• Buddhist Nationalists - Dominant Buddhism is used to reinforce state and Burmese dominance.
  
• Reducing social welfare costs - Integration reduces social welfare costs that would be needed for separate responsibilities.
• Cultural appropriation and exploitation - As ethnic cultures weaken, their cultures can be reproduced and marketed for tourism.
• Military reinforcement - People integrated into mainstream Burmese politics can provide manpower for the military, either as individual soldiers or as Border Guard Forces (BGF).
• Narrative control - The state rewrites history and portrays an inward-looking colonial-like system of domination as historical progress.
• Reducing international criticism - A formally unified society can reduce international criticism regarding minority rights violations.
• Legal absorption under private ownership - Collective ownership moves toward private ownership for cronies and large businesses, supporting economic development.
• Tax options expansion - The integrated population increases tax revenue.
  
• Reducing social cohesion - The collapse of traditional support systems increases dependence on the state.
• Cultural homogenization - A single culture is easier for bureaucrats to manage.
• Reducing language revival costs - The state no longer spends on supporting multiple languages.
• Developing state branding - A unified narrative allows simpler representation of the state globally.
• Weakening indigenous systems - Traditional legal systems are replaced by the state's legal system.
• Aggressive urban expansion - Cities become centers of economic dependence and control.
• Shifting resistance to private life - Ethnic political identity changes into a traditional custom.
• Paternalistic legitimacy - The state portrays its legitimacy and exploitative actions as a "legitimate" mission.
  
• Fragmenting indigenous unity - Creating divisions among indigenous peoples into smaller ethnic groups weakens their collective action.
• Role of international organizations - A uniform society projects an image of stability and progress internationally.
• Some indigenous people accept Burmese identity for survival, but most engage in armed resistance to protect their culture and political heritage. These internal conflicts create misunderstandings and tensions between the Burmese majority and ethnic minorities. Additionally, the separation of seven divisions creates Burmese leadership and Burmese accountability fragmented, with the military becoming the only unified political power holder. Everything else becomes power competition with the military, with no accountability to the Burmese public.
  

In reality, the main beneficiaries of Burmanization are not ordinary citizens but the economic elites and state elites. The military expands its power and profits, using this process to gain economic benefits. Those connected to the group receive uncompetitive economic opportunities, and Burmese politicians use paternalistic legitimacy to build power. International organizations also find it easier to work with a centralized state rather than multiple ethnic groups. It benefits the elites the most.
Burmanization is a strategy that uses cultural diversity as a weapon for political and economic control. It is a tool of centralization used by authoritarians to simplify administration, control resources, and rewrite narratives, while eliminating the identities of ethnic groups. While this system appears to benefit the Burmese public to some extent, elites gain benefits, the military creates its legitimacy by showcasing civil war, recruits soldiers, and seeks economic profits. These eventually harm the Burmese public as well. In Myanmar, this problem is an open wound that needs to be addressed.