INTRODUCTION

In Myanmar, “national races” settled in the territory of Myanmar since 1823 and their descendants are automatically eligible for the first type of citizenship (see introduction by Lall and South). There are currently 136 such groups that are officially recognized as “native” or national races (one group was added at the end of U Thein Sein government). However, not many of them share the vision and values of a Burman/Buddhist “national identity” forged upon them by the state dominated by Burman elites. Successive military governments have dealt with minority nationalities’ grievances and aspiration for self-determination and federalism by crushing forces that refused to acknowledge the legitimacy of militarized and centralized state. Creating a shared identity among these nationalities has been a major challenge for post-independence Myanmar government which saw federalism as synonymous with separatism and a path leading to the disintegration of the union. Armed groups and leaders of ethnic communities on the other hand saw federalism as the best solution to be a part and citizens of the Union of Myanmar.

The 2008 Constitution attempted to deal with these grievances by offering some limited provisions for national minorities. First, the existing seven regions and seven states (which are named after seven dominant minority groups) are given limited legislative and administrative powers. Second, autonomous zones/regions are given ethnic nationalities that constitute a majority in two adjacent townships. Six such groups, Wa, Pao, Palaung, Danu, Kokang in Shan State and Naga from Sagaing are qualified for this. Thirdly, the minority that constitutes 0.1 per cent of the populations of the country's total population and reside in any given region/state are to be represented by their respective “national race affair” ministers. There were twenty-nine such positions. Studies have examined the role and performances of regional governments and the selfautonomous zones (SAZs) under U Thein Sein government. However, there have not been any studies that examine the role and implications of ethnic affairs ministers in Myanmar. To what extent these ethnic affairs ministers (referred to as “national race affairs” ministers) are able to represent their members’ interests? How much power and authority do they have? Were they able to forge a common identity of multi-ethnic states while promoting their cultures and identity and addressing grievances of their respective constituents?