Democracy, often romanticized as the pinnacle of political systems, has long been celebrated and romanticized for its ability to give voice to the people and protect individual rights. However, the notion of a "perfect democracy" is a dangerous illusion that can hinder genuine progress and reform. To truly improve democratic systems, we must first acknowledge that democracy, like any human-designed institution, is inherently flawed and requires constant scrutiny and refinement.

The idea of democracy as a flawless system can lead to complacency and a reluctance to address its shortcomings. This idealization can blind us to the very real issues that plague democratic societies, such as voter suppression, the influence of money in politics, and the marginalization of minority voices. By recognizing that there is no perfect democracy beyond human design, we open ourselves to the possibility of continuous improvement and adaptation.

One of the most significant shortcomings of modern democracies is the growing inequality that often persists despite democratic processes. Economic disparities can lead to political imbalances, where wealthy individuals and corporations wield disproportionate influence over policy-making. This undermines the fundamental principle of "one person, one vote" and can result in policies that favor the elite at the expense of the broader population.

Another critical issue is the vulnerability of democratic systems to manipulation through misinformation and propaganda. The rise of social media and the rapid spread of information have made it easier than ever to sway public opinion through false or misleading narratives. This challenge to the informed citizenry that democracy relies upon highlights the need for robust education systems and media literacy programs.
The tyranny of the majority is another inherent flaw in democratic systems that must be acknowledged and addressed. Democracy has two parts: "Rule of the Majority" and "Consent of the Lost". Especially in Myanmar, "Consent of the Lost" is neglected. Without proper safeguards, pure majority rule can lead to the oppression of minority groups and the erosion of individual rights. Recognizing this shortcoming allows us to implement checks and balances, constitutional protections, and other mechanisms to ensure that democracy serves all members of society, not just the majority.

Furthermore, the short-term focus often encouraged by polarized electoral cycles can hinder a democracy's ability to address long-term challenges such as climate change or demographic shifts. Politicians may prioritize immediate gains over sustainable, long-term solutions to curry favor with voters. Acknowledging this limitation can lead to discussions about how to incorporate long-term planning into democratic governance. The complexity of modern governance also poses a significant challenge to the ideal of direct democracy. As societies become more intricate and interconnected, the issues facing governments become increasingly complex. This can lead to a disconnect between the electorate and the decision-making process, potentially undermining the very principle of popular sovereignty that democracy is built upon.
Let me also list some of the "assumptions" among the people, especially in Myanmar.

• The assumption that the people will be able to elect and appoint those who can best work for them.
• The assumption that those appointed by the people will work best for the people.
• The assumption that those appointed to the three branches of government will control the other branches, even from their own positions.
• The assumption that the majority of the public will make the best decisions for the country's interests, based on rational thought.
• The assumption that the minority will accept the decisions of the majority, even if they disagree.
• The assumption that giving victory to the majority will lead to a stable political system.
• The assumption that the government will be able to meet the needs of the people.
• The assumption that one-person-one-vote is the best way to represent the various peoples and proportions of a nation.

To address these and other shortcomings, we must foster a culture of continuous improvement in our democratic systems. This involves encouraging critical thinking and open debate about the strengths and weaknesses of our institutions. It requires a willingness to experiment with new forms of civic engagement, such as citizens' assemblies, to complement traditional representative democracy.

Education plays a crucial role in this process. By promoting education for human agency and social unity as well as critical thinking skills, we can create a more informed and engaged citizenry capable of recognizing and addressing the flaws in their democratic systems. This educated populace is essential for holding leaders accountable and pushing for necessary reforms.

The "iron law of oligarchy" states that all forms of organization, regardless of how democratic they may be at the start, will eventually and inevitably develop oligarchic tendencies, thus making true democracy practically and theoretically impossible, especially in large groups and complex organizations. We have no choice but to strengthen transparency and accountability mechanisms to combat corruption and ensure that democratic institutions serve the public interest. This includes robust freedom of information laws, protection of human rights defenders, independent oversight bodies, grievance and accountability mechanisms and protections for whistleblowers.

​In conclusion, the path to improving democracy lies not in pursuing an unattainable ideal of perfection, but in the ongoing process of recognizing and addressing its shortcomings. By acknowledging the limitations of human-designed systems, we can approach democratic reform with humility, creativity, and a commitment to continuous improvement. Only through this honest and critical approach can we hope to create more just, equitable, and effective democratic societies that truly serve the needs of all citizens.

Myanmar has been embroiled in one of the world's longest-running civil conflicts since its independence in 1948. At the heart of this conflict lies the struggle for self-determination and recognition of diverse national identities within the country. 

It is crucial to understand that the term "ethnic groups" in Myanmar fails to capture the depth and complexity of the identities involved in Myanmar's conflict. Instead, we must recognize these entities as distinct nations, each with its own history, culture, language, political heritage and worldview. This perspective aligns with the idea that Myanmar is not merely a country of diverse ethnicities but a land of multiple nations coexisting within internationally recognized borders. Each of these nations has its own aspirations for self-governance and recognition of their unique identity within the broader Myanmar state. Myanmar's Civil War is essentially internal "nations" resisting forced assimilation of "state" for the sake of their agency.

The fight for ethnonational liberation in Myanmar has its roots in the country's colonial history and the subsequent centralized rule imposed by the Bamar-dominated government after independence. Myanmar is a failed nation state project left by the British. The various nations within Myanmar have long sought greater autonomy, political representation, defending political heritage and protection of their cultural and linguistic rights.
​
Key aspects of the ethnonational liberation struggle include:

1. Armed resistance: Many nations formed their own armed groups, such as the Karen National Union (KNU) and the Kachin Independence Army (KIA), to fight for their rights and protect their territories.
2. Political movements: Alongside armed struggle, political organizations have emerged to advocate for the rights of their respective nations through non-violent means.
3. Cultural preservation: Efforts to maintain and promote unique languages, traditions, and cultural practices in the face of perceived "Burmanization" policies.
4. Economic control: Demands for greater control over natural resources and economic development within their traditional territories.

Multinational federalism offers a promising framework for addressing the root causes of Myanmar's civil war while respecting the aspirations of its diverse nations. This approach disables the tyranny of majority, equalizes political bargaining power and then recognizes the multinational character of the state and seeks to accommodate various national identities within a unified political structure.

Key features of multinational federalism that could benefit Myanmar include:

1. De-centering power: Granting significant autonomy to subnational units based on national identities, allowing for self-governance in areas such as education, culture, and local administration.
2. Power-sharing: Ensuring representation of all nations in central government institutions, including the legislature, executive, and judiciary.
3. Protection of minority rights: Constitutional guarantees for the rights of internal nations and ethnic groups and provisions for their participation in decision-making processes.
4. Resource sharing: Equitable distribution of natural resources and revenue between the central government and subnational units.
5. Cultural and linguistic rights: Official recognition and promotion of diverse languages and cultural heritages throughout the country.

Implementing multinational federalism in Myanmar will face several challenges:

1. Resistance from centralized power structures: The military and some Bamar political elites may resist decentralization of power.
2. Defining boundaries: Demarcating territories for each nation could be contentious, especially in areas with mixed populations.
3. Balancing unity and diversity: Striking the right balance between national autonomy and maintaining a cohesive state.
4. Trust-building: Overcoming decades of conflict and mistrust between various nations and the unaccountable state.
   

Despite these challenges, multinational federalism offers significant opportunities:

1. Sustainable peace: Addressing the root causes of conflict by recognizing and accommodating diverse national identities.
2. Inclusive development: Empowering local communities to drive their own development agendas.
3. Cultural preservation: Safeguarding the rich tapestry of languages, traditions, and worldviews that make up Myanmar's diverse society.
4. Democratic consolidation: Fostering a more inclusive and representative political system that reflects the country's multinational character.

The recognition of Myanmar as a multinational state, rather than merely a multi-ethnic one, is crucial for understanding and addressing the underlying causes of its protracted civil conflict. Multinational federalism offers a promising framework for accommodating the aspirations of diverse nations while maintaining the territorial integrity of the state.

By embracing this approach, Myanmar has the potential to transform from a battleground of competing different nationalism into a harmonious union of nations, each contributing its unique strengths to the country's development and prosperity. While the path to implementing such a system will undoubtedly be challenging, it represents a viable and potentially transformative solution to ending Myanmar's long-standing civil war and building a more inclusive, peaceful future for all its nations.

In a world captivated by speed, self-expression, and survival, one idea seems almost quaint, like an old family heirloom left on the shelf—respected but rarely used. This idea is the Common Good.

We occasionally hear the term thrown around in speeches or written in mission statements, as though invoking it might bless a policy or justify a difficult decision. But behind the vagueness, there lies a noble, almost revolutionary thought: that we, despite our differences, are capable of living not just side by side, but with a sense of shared purpose.

It wasn’t always so elusive. Ancient thinkers—Aristotle, Cicero, and later Aquinas—grappled with this notion earnestly. They saw the good of a society not simply as the wealth of its rulers or the freedom of its merchants, but as the flourishing of its people together. They knew that peace was not merely the absence of violence, but the presence of just relationships.

Still, their visions were rooted in particular times—anchored by theology, empire, and assumptions about who counted as a “citizen.” As the world changed, so too did the framing of what society owed to itself.

Some, like Hobbes and Locke, retreated into more manageable territory: if each individual pursued their own interest, perhaps the sum would lead to a kind of order. But this logic often leaves the weakest behind. Like asking everyone to swim when some have boats and others, only their arms.

In moments of rupture—revolutions, wars, and industrial upheaval—new voices reminded us that society could be something more than a marketplace of private desires. The Catholic Church’s social teachings in the 19th and 20th centuries, particularly under Popes Leo XIII and John XXIII, reintroduced a compelling vision: that dignity, rights, and shared responsibility could define a moral economy. And yet, if the Common Good were only a matter of doctrine or statecraft, it would remain lifeless. What brings it to life is a very different force: the gentle but firm demand that we live in relationship, not competition.

Aristotle called this political friendship—a mutual concern for the other’s well-being, strong enough to build cities, lasting enough to resist the temptations of domination. Rousseau offered the idea of a general will—not just what most people want, but what a society would choose if it remembered to care for everyone. Rawls, in our modern age, reminded us that we must imagine justice as if we didn’t know our own advantages—an invitation to fairness wrapped in humility.

These are not just philosophical flourishes. They are tools for peacebuilding. Because peace is not what follows war—it is what prevents it. It is what grows in the spaces where people are not merely tolerated, but taken seriously. Where decisions are made not with the logic of winners and losers, but with an eye toward how everyone can move forward without being left behind.

The Common Good, then, is not a doctrine—it is a practice. It begins in homes, expands to schools, appears in workplaces, and must be defended in parliaments. It is not one thing, but a way of asking the same question again and again: What kind of world do we want to live in together?

And when we answer that question sincerely, five ideas tend to recur:

• Benefit for All – A society must be judged not by its wealth or its innovation, but by how well the least powerful are doing. A good society lifts everyone, not just those who run fastest.
• Fairness – Fairness is not a fantasy of perfect equality, but a commitment that rules and rewards will not be written only for the few.
• Inclusivity – The Common Good must include the uncommon—the minority voice, the outsider’s grief, the perspective that interrupts our assumptions.
• Sustainability – Any good worth pursuing must last. The Common Good does not mortgage the future to pay for the present. It considers the child yet unborn.
• Cooperation – In a deeply fractured world, the rarest virtue is not strength, but willingness: the willingness to listen, to adapt, and to act with others, not against them.
  

These are not lofty ideals reserved for saints or scholars. They are daily decisions. In how we speak to someone who disagrees with us. In how we vote. In what we support, tolerate, or resist. To work for the Common Good is to engage in a kind of quiet resistance against apathy, against cynicism, and against the seductive belief that we are only responsible for ourselves. It is to plant a flag not in victory, but in shared humanity.

Of course, the Common Good is not a destination. It shifts, because people change. It must be revisited, not revered. But its importance lies in the direction it offers—a north star in an age of fragmentation. If we were to think of peace not just as a treaty, but as a daily ethic—an ongoing willingness to make room for one another—then the Common Good becomes more than political theory. It becomes a habit of the heart. And perhaps, a quiet revolution.

The term 'politics' is a complex and multifaceted label that has been applied and interpreted in various ways by scholars, politicians, and thinkers throughout history, reflecting diverse social and intellectual contexts. In this blog post, we'll explore different perspectives on what has been labeled 'politics' and how these perspectives shape our understanding of these crucial aspects of human society.

Harold Lasswell, a prominent political scientist, viewed politics as a process of "who gets what, when, and how." This succinct definition highlights the distributive nature of politics and its role in allocating resources and power within a society.

For David Easton, another influential political theorist, politics is about "the authoritative allocation of values for a society." This perspective emphasizes the role of politics in determining and enforcing societal norms and priorities.

Vladimir Lenin, the Russian revolutionary leader, took a more economic approach, stating that "politics is the most concentrated expression of economics." This view underscores the close relationship between political power and economic systems.

Bernard Crick offers a more comprehensive definition, describing politics as "the activity by which differing interests within a given unit of rule are conciliated by giving them a share in power in proportion to their importance to the welfare and the survival of the whole community." This perspective highlights the role of politics in managing diverse interests and fostering cooperation within a society.

Adrian Leftwich expands on this idea, suggesting that politics encompasses all the activities of cooperation, negotiation, and conflict that arise when people come together to use, produce, and distribute resources in the production and reproduction of their social and biological life. This broad definition recognizes politics as an inherent part of human interaction and social organization.

Despite these varying interpretations, it's clear that the practices and power dynamics we label 'politics' are deeply intertwined with ordinary people's lives. In fact, our behaviors and lives are constantly influenced by political institutions, while we, in turn, shape these institutions through our actions and choices.

The diversity of these perspectives highlights that 'politics' is not a monolithic concept with a fixed essence, but rather a dynamic and evolving set of practices, discourses, and power relations that we categorize as such.It touches every aspect of our lives, from the most personal decisions to global affairs.

Understanding these different viewpoints on "politics" can help us become more informed and engaged citizens. By recognizing the various dimensions of politics - from resource allocation and value determination to conflict resolution and social cooperation - we can better appreciate its importance in shaping our societies and our individual lives.

Let me give my personal favorite! Mark Warren focuses that politics is the intersection of Conflict and Power. I also add a directional factor there: collaboration. Therefore, one way to understand what we call 'politics' is to see it as the intersection of conflict and power, where increasing the space for collaboration can be considered a more 'political' approach within this framework. On the other hand, the less collaborative and more polarized, it becomes less political and more like a war.

I must, however, note that power is mostly unequal between the entities. This is where Political friendship is critical. It requires acknowledging unequal starting points. It is not naive unity but a deliberate effort to redistribute power—a strategic adherence of shared goals to dismantle entrenched hierarchies.

A strong and harmonious society is built on a foundation of good political systems, which in turn are shaped by an informed and active citizenry. By engaging with politics and understanding its multifaceted nature, we can contribute to creating more just, equitable, and prosperous communities for all. Let's focus on our political friendship and common good!