Political legitimacy is a virtue of political institutions and of the decisions - about laws, policies, and candidates for political office - made within them
There is an expectation that governments and the constitutions that they operate under are legitimate and that there is a right to govern. But legitimacy is a contested concept, and its sources are varied. It becomes more complicated during a constitutional transition. Currently, in Myanmar, there are many kinds of actors claiming legitimacy and demanding a seat at the table for the design of a new constitution.
Historically, legitimacy was often based on tradition, such as a hereditary or religious tradition or some kind of implied social contract. Today, democratic elections or a referendum provide the primary source of legitimacy in many countries. However, some governments rely on what might be termed output legitimacy. For example, they are seen as legitimate because they are able to provide for or meet the expectations of the people, such as through their economic performance or by providing security, essential services and critical infrastructure. An armed group may also similarly claim legitimacy on various output-based or ideological grounds. Constitutions may also be supported by justice and reason-based legitimacy. Legitimacy is also linked to regime type and is often contested.
What happens in a conflict situation when the nature of even the very existence of a state is contested? In February 2021, the Myanmar military launched a coup on the pretence of electoral fraud in the November 2020 election, which was won by the National League for Democracy (NLD) in a landslide. In many respects, the coup has been a failure. A Civil Disobedience Movement was launched, and conflict with ethnic armed organisations (EAOs) and a 'People's Defence Force' (PDF) escalated. A majority of the country is now in dispute or under the control of EAOs or PDFs, and there is an increasing risk that it will fall apart.
Following the coup, a series of shadow institutions were established. A National Unity Government (NUG) was established by the Committee Representing the Pyidaungsu Hluttaw (the parliament, CRPH), comprising members elected in the 2020 election. In addition, a National Unity Consultative Council (NUCC) was established to provide representation for EAOs and civil society organisations that do not enjoy democratic legitimacy. Most recently, a People's Assembly has also been established, partly in response to questions about the legitimacy of the NUG and its associated institutions.
The NUG, together with NUCC stakeholders, prepared a Federal Democracy Charter (FDC), which has since been revised by the NUCC. The CRPH, with the support of the NUG, has also enacted a series of laws, some of which were developed in direct response to the acts of the military regime (e.g. conscription).
However, as reported by International IDEA:
Most governments and international organisations continue to withhold recognition from the National Unity Government (NUG) as the lawful Government of Myanmar, although it was formed by the elected members of parliament and enjoys the support of the widest range of representative stakeholders. A recent survey (see below) also showed the NUG continues to enjoy overwhelming support across the population. The legitimate national unity institutions and their ethnic allies reject the 2008 Constitution as it has lost its political legitimacy and has been consistently violated by the military since the coup.
At the same time, EAOs have sought to (continue to) build their own legitimacy, delivering services and securing territory, and sometimes calling into question the status of and commitment to Myanmar. In Chin State, a new Chinland Constitution has been established, which proclaims its sovereign status, endorses the Chin National Army and establishes ministries for Defence, Foreign Affairs and Immigration. In the Karenni State, for example, a kind of bottom-up federalism is being advocated based on the development of their own governing institutions and service delivery mechanisms. The Karenni Interim Government asserts that the legitimacy of its governance system "is based on the direct representation and participation of all Karenni peoples in the local administrative mechanisms."
However, these developments call into question the overarching role of the central institutions such as the NUG and CRPH, the FDC, and the proposed transitional constitution. Some actors have gone so far as to claim that the "centre is dead." But can the vision of a federal democracy be achieved without central coordination and inclusive representation?