The text examines how the Salween Peace Park (SPP) in Karen territory of Myanmar has emerged as a powerful Indigenous-led model of democracy amid the country’s post-coup turmoil and long history of ethnic exclusion. Created through years of community consultation, the SPP is governed from the grassroots by customary Kaw territories, a 137-member General Assembly, and Indigenous knowledge systems that center harmony with nature and representation for more-than-human beings. By integrating Karen cultural principles, deliberative democracy, and a hybrid governance structure shared with the Karen National Union, the SPP provides a rare space where communities hold real decision-making power and can effectively resist militarized resource exploitation. It stands as a pioneering example of radical ecological democracy, offering lessons for future federalism in Myanmar and for global efforts to reform governance by valuing Indigenous worldviews, responsibility to the land, and truly inclusive representation.
| Author(s) | Paul Sein Twa |
|---|---|
| Topics | Ancestral Knowledge, Environmental justice |
| Case Report | Radical Democracy: recovering the roots of self-governance & autonomy |
Democratic turmoil was rife in the build-up to Myanmar’s 2020 elections. Military-backed parties claimed widespread voter fraud and vote fixing, accusing the incumbent National League for Democracy (NLD) of using the Coronavirus Pandemic to steal the elections. The subsequent February 2021 Military Coup brought a swift end to Myanmar’s brief 10-year experiment with democracy, plunging the nation into disarray as outraged citizens nationwide downed tools and joined the Civil Disobedience Movement. In South-Eastern Myanmar, in Karen controlled territories, the 2015 Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement crumbled and armed conflict once again erupted. At present, there are more than one million displaced people[1] across Kawthoolei[2], many of whom are taking shelter in the forests and mountains that the Karen people have stewarded for generations.
The Coup, while causing an inexcusable tide of suffering across the country, has also created opportunity. Communities long subjugated by Myanmar’s Central powers are pursuing their own forms of representative governance. Now, in a time bereft of legitimate Central Government, Community-led institutions can demonstrate a clear and positive path towards just representation in a potential future Federal Myanmar. This paper will look at one of these institutions, known as the Salween Peace Park.
Representation in Myanmar – For the few
Representation has been a consistent issue in Myanmar for many generations. For centuries, the nation was ruled by various feudal kingdoms, then by a dogmatic British colonial authority that subsumed Myanmar into British India. Independence from British Rule in 1948 was followed by decades of authoritarianism. In 2010, the nation’s first democratic elections after 50 years of military dictatorship initiated a democratic ‘reform period’, kick-started by the Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP). This quasi-civilian party acted as the ‘legitimate’ arms of the Burmese Military. While in office the USDP pursued an agenda pantomiming Western-inspired Liberal Democratic reforms. In reality, the USDP predominantly passed legislation that ensured the Government’s continued monopoly over land, forest, and all natural resources in the country and entrenched the power of the military within any potential future democratic state. When the NLD took power in 2016, they found themselves shackled not only by the restrictions put in place by the USDP, but also by their own ambitions. Aung San Suu Kyi’s focus on economic growth and ‘Modernisation’ above all else, coupled with the military-penned 2008 Constitution and a Legal Framework that ignores Ethnic and Indigenous rights, only deepened the many political rifts in a nation already fractured by one of the world’s longest ongoing Civil Wars.
For many, the USDP and NLD periods were merely another incarnation of Burman Supremacy, with Ethnic rights and voices entirely sidelined and new laws and policies focused on the exploitation of natural resources in Ethnic territories. Controversial rulings around Citizenship and Identity Documents disenfranchised countless voters, especially in Ethnic communities. Compounding this ‘Ethnic Issues’ - or the needs of Myanmar’s Ethnic Peoples - were considered part of the Peace Process, and under the purview of the Military. This meant that any new policies passed by the Central Government were solely informed by the needs of the Burman majority. Ethnic and Indigenous communities were thus de facto excluded from Myanmar’s new democracy purely because of our status as ‘Ethnic’.
The Salween Peace Park – Indigenous Representation in Action
Faced with continuous exclusion from politics at National level, and not seeing themselves represented in Myanmar’s new policies and reforms, Karen communities in Kawthoolei’s Mutraw District have paved their own path to representation. Launched in December of 2018, the Salween Peace Park (SPP) is an Indigenous-led culture and nature conservation area, operating under a popularly elected 137-member General Assembly and guided by Karen Indigenous Knowledge and culture. The Salween Peace Park was declared after five years of community consultations and a popular referendum. Covering 6700 km2, the SPP contains 294 customary Kaw territories, 43 Community Forests, 6 Wildlife Sanctuaries, and 9 Reserved Forest areas. Founded upon the three pillars of peace and self-determination, environmental integrity, and cultural survival, the SPP seeks to find a way to bring key lessons from the indigenous Karen way of life to a landscape-scale. Through this, the SPP’s stakeholders aim to realise the community’s vision for a peaceful future, where people can live in harmony with Nature and the environment can remain healthy for future generations .
Unlike most forms of governance, representation in the SPP comes from the ground upwards; the key decision-makers and leaders in the Park are the community themselves. The Kaw customary territory is the locus of governance from which the direction and aims of the SPP flow. The SPP’s institutions are founded upon the needs and worldview of Indigenous Karen communities, and thus, decision-making as a whole is built upon holistic approaches to Nature. Traditional leaders are brought on as advisors to help the development of policies and strategy. By building democracy and governance on an Indigenous foundation, the SPP establishes a form of democracy that not only represents Karen indigenous communities but also gives voice to the more-than-human entities that are intricately woven throughout Karen culture. These entities are represented through the traditions and taboos of each Kaw territory, allowing for Governance that is flexible, adaptive and built heavily on local needs rather than national wants.
Tying this together is the General Assembly, which comprises representatives from the SPP’s 35 Village Tracts, the Karen National Union (KNU), and Karen Civil Society. The GA manages six Working Groups that help information and strategy flow upwards from the Kaw. The General Assembly is both a forum for Community members to gather, share, and learn, and an amplifier for Community voices, aims, and needs. By operating on the principle of deliberative democracy, the General Assembly builds on the Indigenous Karen oral tradition, whereby local knowledge and taboos are passed down through stories and poetry. This makes governance more transparent and accessible, thus strengthening political engagement.
The election process for the General Assembly is conducted once every four years. Elections are held at Village Tract level, bringing together communities from each Village to vote for a Community representative within the General Assembly. Votes are cast anonymously at temporary polling stations. The elected members of the General Assembly then gather and vote to select the Governing Committee, the 11-member body that oversees the General Assembly. The General Assembly meets annually, with sub-meeting being held throughout the year. The Governing Committee also meets quarterly to share reports from their various visits to areas across the SPP and the key needs identified.
The SPP plays an important role when it comes to accountability. The de facto political authority across Kawthoolei is the KNU and in Mutraw District, even prior to the Coup, the KNU has been the primary provider of governmental services and institutions. To the majority of Mutraw’s citizens the KNU is the government. In a move thus far unique in Myanmar, the KNU has not only formally recognised the SPP and its Charter, but has also integrated into the SPP’s governing structure. This has established a hybrid form of governance that greatly reduces the gap between ‘Citizens’ and ‘Government’. Community members are now on much more of a level playing field with the KNU, holding equal status within the General Assembly. This not only increases communication between communities and the KNU, but also strengthens communities’ ability to challenge any actors within the KNU working against Community interests.
Through promoting political participation, strengthening community voices and rights, and instituting context-relevant safeguards, the SPP has already begun influencing the conduct and abuse of power in Myanmar. As an entity, the SPP stands as a direct counter to the Burmese Junta’s continuing pursuit of Central Military-State Territorialisation. This takes a plurality of forms, but is most visible in the prevention of military-backed natural resource exploitation, and the halting of work on the proposed Hatgyi, Dagwin, and Weigyi Hydropower Dams. Community mobilization against these threats has not only predominantly brought them to a standstill, but has also further strengthened Indigenous Karen-led State Building. This has allowed the SPP to develop into a fledgling Radical Ecological Democracy.
Representation, Indigeneity, and Future Federalism in Myanmar
Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs) throughout the world recognize the voices of more-than-human entities in governance decisions.[3] This is not done by special decree, but is rather a component of many IPLCs culture and worldview. More-than-humans are a part of everyday society, with equal rights to political expression as humans. It has been argued that IPLCs live with a “bundle of responsibilities”[4]; responsibility to future generations, responsibility to Nature, responsibilities to ancestors and more-than-human entities. These responsibilities are intertwined with rights, engendering a society in which the protection of Nature is innate, rather than something that comes with ‘necessary sacrifices’.
There is empirical evidence that this has had a positive impact on the health of the planet. IPLCs territories cover an estimated 20% of the planet, the majority of them existing within zones of protracted armed conflict, and yet they are home to a significant proportion of the world’s remaining biodiversity.[5] In a time of Global Climate Emergency it is clear that there is much to be learned from IPLCs, especially from how we approach Representation. And yet IPLC representation within ‘mainstream’ government remains so rare that it makes Global headlines when one of us is elected. Some countries offer special permissions or recognitions to IPLCs, or have integrated key International Declarations protecting IPs into governance. Communication remains a key challenge, though.
At National and International level, despite concerted efforts to improve communication and inclusivity, IPLCs and National Governments frequently ‘talk past’ each-other. There remains a fundamental difference between ‘Western’ and IPLC understandings of governance, representation, rights, ‘development’, and - most importantly - ownership. This is visible even in the language of Global Governance. IPLCs have to translate our culture, our Indigenous Knowledge, to fit the International Framework. We are ‘Stewards’ and ‘Guardians’, our livelihoods are ‘Sustainable’ and ‘Climate-Resilient’. At the Global level, this is an imposed fee, the price to pay to be granted access and Representation, and it entrenches the gulf in the understanding of and meaningful engagement with IPLC Knowledge and rights.
We are at a conjunctural point in human history. The future of our species in an increasingly erratic Climate is dependent on the decision-making of peoples and leaders across the Globe. There must be a willingness to aspire to a deeper reformulation of the way that we govern, it is time for a diversity of voices in our democracies. The Salween Peace Park challenges the way that power is shared in Myanmar. By embracing Indigenous ontologies and more-than-human voices as a core component of governance Indigenous Karen communities are demonstrating a different path to Representation. The SPP is but one of many more radical approaches to democracy that IPLCs are exploring, each one offering us a chance to reverse the damage that decades of a gluttonous growth-driven mindset to governance have wrought. The path to change is being charted, it is up to us to follow it.
Further explorations
Articles
ICCA resources: https://evo.re/rd10601
Earth Island article: https://evo.re/rd10602
Mongobay article: https://evo.re/rd10603
Videos
Salween Peace Park: https://evo.re/rd10604
Salween Peace Park 4th General Assembly: https://evo.re/rd10605
The Living Cultural Territory Sacred and Historical Sites in the Salween Peace Park: https://evo.re/rd10606
Notes
- ↑ Kawthoolei-Displacement Overview Map August 2024, Committee for Internally Displaced Karen People
- ↑ The S’gaw Karen language name for the Karen national homeland
- ↑ Paul, Andrew & Roth, Robin & Moo, Saw. (2021). Relational ontology and more-than-human agency in Indigenous Karen conservation practice. Pacific Conservation Biology. 27. 10.1071/PC20016.
- ↑ Braiding Sweetgrass: Indigenous Wisdom, Scientific Knowledge and the Teachings of Plants, R.W. Kimmerer, 2013
- ↑ Even after armed conflict, the environmental quality of Indigenous Peoples’ lands in biodiversity hotspots surpasses that of non-Indigenous lands, M. Beattie et al., Biological Conservation Volume 286 (110288) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2023.110288