Following up on yesterday’s post, I draw today on my article “Addressing Myanmar’s Citizenship Crisis”, which was published online by the Journal of Contemporary Asia about three months ago. The hard copy will appear later this year. It notes that while multiculturalism (Multikulti in the German shorthand) has often been pronounced dead by western politicians, the policies that define it live on. Furthermore, they offer rich comparative experience which Myanmar might study in its quest for meaningful national reconciliation.

Multiculturalism appears in many guises, and is by no means easy to pin down. Broadly, however, it corresponds to issues captured in the Multiculturalism Policy Index created by Keith Banting and Will Kymlicka at Queen’s University, Canada. The MPI tracks six policies for national minorities: federalism; official language status; political representation; funding for language training; political affirmation; international visibility. It tracks eight policies for immigrant minorities: political affirmation; revision of school curricula; media sensitivity; dress code and other exemptions; dual citizenship; funding for cultural activities; funding for language training; affirmative action. Under each heading, there are thus clusters of options available to policy makers in Myanmar. They generate ways of analyzing the existing policy stance.

Six questions taken from the MPI can be asked of Myanmar’s policies towards its eight major national races. On federalism: is a division of power between the central state and constituent units enshrined in the constitution or otherwise guaranteed, and at the same time do the territories of key national minorities correspond to constituent units of the state to generate some measure of minority autonomy? On official language status: are minority languages granted official status regionally or nationally, and do they have equal footing with the majority language? On political representation: have electoral rules been adapted to recognize or accommodate national minorities and ensure their representation in central government? On funding for language training: does the state finance bilingual education or mother-tongue instruction for children and/or adults? On affirmative action: does it have such a policy for national minorities? On international visibility: have minority nations been accorded an international personality through measures such as legislative competence on the international scene in areas of internal competence, authority to sign bilateral or multilateral treaties, representation on international bodies and/or overseas delegations, and representative teams at international sporting events?

Eight questions, again from the MPI, can be asked of Myanmar’s policies towards any immigrant minorities it may choose to acknowledge (as proposed yesterday). On political affirmation: does the state affirm multiculturalism, and does it have an implementing body? On revision of school curricula: does it include multiculturalism in its curriculum? On media sensitivity: does it write ethnic representation, inclusion, sensitivity or diversity into the mandate of public broadcasters and into media licences? On dress code exemptions: does it grant exemptions or accommodations on religious grounds? On dual citizenship: does it allow for dual citizenship? On funding for cultural activities: does it provide public funding on a core and/or project basis? On funding for language training: does it (again) finance bilingual education or mother-tongue instruction for children and/or adults? On affirmative action: does it (again) have such a policy for immigrant minorities?

It would be unreasonable to expect all of these questions to gain affirmative answers any time soon in Myanmar. The distance to be traveled remains vast. Nevertheless, such questions could help structure policy debate by signaling how other complex societies have sought to embrace racial and ethnic diversity through constitutional provisions and concrete policy initiatives.