Federal Unit Governance in Myanmar

Photo – AFP

“Federal Unit Governance in Myanmar: A Practical Workbook” was published in December, 2025. This practical workbook was developed by the ISP-Myanmar’s Capacity Building Department.

▪️ About the Workbook

Background and Rationale

Myanmar’s complex ethnic diversity, colonial legacy, and history of authoritarian rule have profoundly shaped its political landscape and ongoing struggles. Since its independence in 1948, the country has wrestled with persistent demands for autonomy and self-determination from its many ethnic nationalities. The 1947 Panglong Agreement embodied early federalist aspirations, envisioning a union that respected ethnic diversity and guaranteed meaningful self-governance. Yet decades of military dictatorship, rigid centralization, protracted civil conflict, and entrenched authoritarianism eroded these federal ideals. Today, as Myanmar seeks a path toward democratic transformation and shared sovereignty, federalism remains the cornerstone for resolving ethnic conflicts and building a nation that is both unified and diverse.

Need for Capacity-Building in Federal Governance at the Local Level

Establishing a sustainable federal system requires strong governance capacity not only at the national level but also within subnational units. Local leaders, administrators, and institutions must be equipped with the skills, knowledge, and resources necessary to deliver public services, manage resources, and engage communities effectively. Capacity-building empowers local actors to exercise autonomy responsibly, supports meaningful decentralization, and ensures that governance structures can respond to local needs and aspirations.

Challenges in Conflict-Affected and Self-Administered Areas

Federal units in conflict-affected and self-administered regions of Myanmar face a distinct set of challenges, including:

Fragmented authority and overlapping jurisdictions among Ethnic Resistance Organizations (EROs), local administrations, and the central military government
Weak or underdeveloped institutions’ inability to provide consistent public services
Population displacement and breakdowns in social cohesion
Limited access to infrastructure, financial resources, and basic services
Ongoing security concerns, particularly the potential aerial strikes by the central military government, inhibit open participation and administrative stability

These challenges require adaptive, context-sensitive approaches that prioritize local realities and conflict sensitivity in any governance design and implementation of potential federal units.

Importance of Inclusive and Participatory Governance for Long-Term Peacebuilding

Long-term peace and development in Myanmar depend on governance systems that are inclusive, transparent, and participatory. Federal governance must ensure the active involvement of ethnic minorities, women, youth, and other marginalized groups in decision-making processes. Such inclusivity strengthens legitimacy, addresses historical grievances, and fosters trust between communities and state institutions. Participatory governance also helps prevent conflict by offering peaceful mechanisms to address disputes and reflect diverse interests—laying a strong foundation for enduring peace and shared prosperity.

State-Building and Nation-Building in the Myanmar Context

State-building and nation-building are two interrelated but distinct processes that have shaped Myanmar’s political struggles since independence in 1948. State-building refers to the creation and strengthening of political institutions, the rule of law, administrative systems, and state authority, while nation-building involves fostering a shared identity, unity, and legitimacy among diverse groups within a political boundary.

Theoretically, the core feature of state-building is defined by its monopoly on the legitimate use of violence within a defined territory (per Max Weber’s definition). The core elements then include: centralized administration and bureaucracy, taxation, and resource extraction, military capacity for internal control and external defense, and legal and institutional frameworks for governance. Moreover, a state building requires important aspects for the economy, focusing on trade, property rights, and regulating the economy. Additionally, a state is established as an efficient organization for resolving conflicts.

Modern-day thinkers such as Francis Fukuyama discussed three points on “Modern Stateness.”

1. State

A centralized government that maintains a monopoly by use of force within a certain geographical territory.

2. Rule of law

The rule of law requires not only ordinary citizens to follow the law, but also elites to follow the law.

3. Accountability

It is required that democratic accountability and accountability linking with other systems.

The first requirement is offering power to the state (government), and the other two are to make checks and balances on state power. Fukuyama’s discourse stated that the first point is vesting power in the ruler, and the remaining two points are empowering citizens and applying checks and balances of the state. In Myanmar, the failure to meaningfully integrate these two processes has been a central cause of chronic instability and conflict.

ISP-Myanmar observes that the country continues to grapple with the unfinished business of state and nation-building. Successive governments—whether civilian, military, or semi-democratic—have tended to prioritize a centralized state structure over inclusive nation-building, relying more on force and coercion than on dialogue, participation, and accommodation to manage ethnic diversity. In doing so, they have often ignored both individual and collective rights to the extent that some past approaches were almost anti-nation-building. Under the post-colonial Union of Burma, the formation of the state has been plagued by unresolved issues of ethnic autonomy, the unfulfilled promises of the Panglong Agreement, and the enduring legacy of divide-and-rule tactics that began during British rule and continue to this day. Ethnic armed struggle emerged as a form of resistance against a state that many non-Bamar nationalities saw as illegitimate or colonial in form. Rather than building a federal union based on equality and shared sovereignty, the military-led state enforced a unitary and authoritarian model, suppressing ethnic identities and centralizing power. This approach not only failed to create national unity but also deepened the mistrust between the state and ethnic nationalities.

Apart from these unfinished businesses of State-and-Nation-Building, Myanmar’s citizenship governance lacks inclusiveness, as a broader challenge. The Myanmar citizenship law was enacted by authoritarian rule, which has been criticized for violating international standards on non-discrimination and statelessness prevention. Exclusion of the Rohingya, a Muslim minority in Rakhine State, is an important piece of evidence that led to mass displacement: almost a million refugees to camps in Bangladesh.

In the contemporary period, especially after the 2011 quasi-civilian government and the 2021 military coup, Myanmar has entered a new phase of contested statebuilding. The 2008 Constitution reinforced military dominance and centralized control, undermining democratic reforms and federal aspirations. The 2021 coup triggered widespread resistance, not only in major cities but also through renewed alliances between the pro-democracy movement and EROs. This convergence has fostered a more inclusive, albeit imperfect, discourse on nation-building—one that envisions a federal democratic union constructed from the ground up, acknowledging the rights and identities of all ethnic communities.

After the coup, the Ethnic Armed Organizations (EAOs) and emerging armed resistance groups, such as People Defence Forces (PDF), can extend their territorial control, especially after a major military offensive of “Operation 1027” by the Three Brotherhoods Alliance (3BHAs), the EAOs even taken control of several townships. Then, some academics proclaim their new fashion of administration as ‘local governance’. But ISP-Myanmar observes that the nature of the new administration in ethnic-controlled regions is “Mini-state building” or “Rebel governance” rather than local governance. The EAOs have adopted policies and mechanisms to increase civilian support, to consolidate territorial control, to transform society and politics according to their goals, and to stabilize economic production. In addition, the groups are also trying to achieve international recognition for their rule. However, the result of their territorial self-governance depends on better state-society relations, quality services, and the quality of local institutions. Moreover, the groups should consider international humanitarian norms and the role of women and youth in their governance activities.

Today, challenges and opportunities lie in rethinking both state-building and nation-building in more participatory, decentralized, and equitable ways. EROs and the emerging democratic forces are attempting to co-create governance systems that reflect local realities and shared political values, rather than imposing a singular national identity. For Myanmar to continue to exist as a country of peace and stability, state-building must serve the broader purpose of nation-building, rooted in justice, mutual recognition, and a federalism that reflects and accommodates the country’s true diversity.

▪️ Objectives of the Workbook

To explore and analyze the structures, functions, and interactions of Territorial Self-Governance (TSG)—in other words, emerging resistance governance in Myanmar—through selected case studies.
To design and develop a practical, context-specific governance curriculum that enhances understanding, critical analysis, and application of democratic governance principles.
To equip participants with the knowledge, skills, and tools needed to foster inclusive and accountable governance systems that effectively respond to the needs of the people of Myanmar.

This workbook is intended to serve as a foundational resource for women, youth, emerging community leaders, civil society activists, students, and civil servants participating in the Civil Disobedience Movement (CDM), as well as prospective administrators from EROs, emerging non-state actors, and political parties in Myanmar.