Other meanings of National Convention
Myanmar politics
The National Convention was a state-controlled constitutional forum convened by Myanmar’s military government between 1993 and 2007. Its stated purpose was to establish principles for a new constitution, but the process excluded or constrained major opposition forces and produced a framework that preserved the armed forces’ central political role.1
The National Convention was created to replace the constitutional order suspended after the State Law and Order Restoration Council seized power in 1988. The military government presented it as a route toward a disciplined multiparty democracy and a new constitution, rather than as an elected constituent assembly.1 The convention first met at the Myanmar Convention Centre in Yangon in January 1993.
Its delegates came from several categories: representatives of political parties, elected candidates from the 1990 general election, ethnic nationality organizations, public-sector groups, and nominees selected by the authorities. This composition gave the proceedings an institutional appearance while leaving the government decisive control over membership, procedure, and the agenda. The National League for Democracy, which had won the 1990 election, participated initially but objected to restrictions on debate and the failure to recognize the election result.
The convention did not operate under a freely negotiated constitutional mandate. Instead, participants were asked to work within principles defined by the military authorities, including the preservation of national unity, sovereignty, and the leading role of the armed forces in national politics.
The convention’s work was repeatedly interrupted because its controlled procedures conflicted with demands for representative constitutional bargaining. The NLD withdrew in 1995, and the authorities expelled it from the process in 1996; the convention then remained suspended for roughly eight years.2
The government defended the delays as necessary for consultation among the country’s many ethnic communities. Critics argued that the process was designed to prevent the 1990 election winners from exercising a constitutional role and to institutionalize military power before civilian institutions could be restored. The authorities also dissolved or restricted organizations associated with the democratic opposition, limiting the convention’s capacity to function as an independent forum.
The process resumed in 2004 amid the government’s “road map to democracy.” A final phase ran from October 2006 to September 2007. Delegates adopted a set of detailed principles that became the basis for drafting a constitution, but the convention did not itself produce a constitutional text or submit its principles to a popular vote.
The convention’s principles shaped the 2008 Constitution, which reserved a permanent political role for the armed forces. The constitution granted the military one-quarter of the seats in the Union parliament and in regional and state legislatures, enough to block constitutional amendments requiring more than three-quarters approval when military members voted together.3
The framework also provided for military appointment of the ministers responsible for defense, home affairs, and border affairs. A president had to meet qualifications that could exclude people with foreign spouses or children, and the constitution included emergency provisions under which the commander-in-chief could assume sovereign power. These arrangements reflected principles endorsed during the convention, particularly the requirement that the armed forces participate in national political leadership.
The constitution introduced elected legislatures and a formal separation among executive, legislative, and judicial institutions, and it created a structure of states and regions alongside self-administered areas. Yet the distribution of authority, restrictions on constitutional amendment, and military appointments meant that the resulting order was not a straightforward transfer from military rule to civilian supremacy.4
The National Convention was less a single continuous meeting than a prolonged constitutional program conducted in distinct sessions. Its first phase adopted 104 basic principles, while later sessions refined principles on the legislature, executive, judiciary, administration, elections, and the armed forces.2
Ethnic representation was a central but unresolved issue. The process included representatives connected with ceasefire groups and ethnic nationality organizations, and the constitution later recognized self-administered zones and areas. However, participation did not settle disputes over federalism, control of natural resources, military administration, or the boundaries of civilian and armed-group authority. Several ceasefire organizations later objected to constitutional provisions that required their forces to enter a centralized state security structure.
The convention also preceded a rapid, tightly managed transition rather than an immediate democratic opening. After the constitution was approved in a May 2008 referendum held soon after Cyclone Nargis, elections followed in 2010 and a nominally civilian government took office in 2011.5 The convention therefore mattered chiefly as the institutional bridge between direct military administration and the constitutionally protected military influence that followed.
The National Convention discussed here is Myanmar’s constitutional forum of 1993–2007, not the French National Convention of 1792–1795 or other organizations using the same name.
Help improve the encyclopedia. Reports go straight to the site manager.