Seminar Report The role of Political Parties in Democratic Transitions

Seminar Report
The role of Political Parties in Democratic
Transitions
Myanmar Multiparty Democracy Programme
Seminar held in Yangon, Myanmar
19-20 February 2013
Venue: Inya Lake Hotel
FINAL
1

Introduction
In this report we aim at presenting the key highlights from the multiparty seminar held in Yangon regarding
the role of political parties in democratic transitions. The deliberations and discussions were very rich and
constructive and thus it is not possible to cover it all in a report, but the main seminar proceedings follow
below.
The seminar brought together a total of 116 participants including Myanmar political party representatives
(from 47 registered political parties), representatives from the Union Election Commission and key local
civil society groups engaged in democratisation. Experts and practitioners from Indonesia, South Africa,
Nepal and representatives from international democracy assistance organizations joined them to share
their experience on democratic processes.
The aim of the seminar was well achieved thanks to the participation and engagement of the political
parties in Myanmar and many others. “This is the first time for decades that so many parties are gathered
around the same table,” one of the political party leaders claimed and continued: ”Moreover, we have not
before jointly discussed our common roles and challenges as political parties”. The aim was exactly to
broaden the understanding of democratic transition processes in general and the roles of political parties
as democratic actors in Myanmar’s emerging democracy in particular. Moreover, the aim of the seminar
was to share knowledge, experiences and lessons learned from political transition processes in other
countries that share similarities with Myanmar – and offer an inclusive platform for to discuss issues of
national importance as well as key challenges and opportunities that Myanmar political parties face during
this important time. Thus, the first day was conducted in plenary and the second day four workshops on
the various themes were held.
The seminar was the first activity of the Myanmar Multiparty Democracy Programme established by the
Danish Institute for Parties and Democracy (DIPD) and the Netherlands Institute for Multiparty Dialogue
(NIMD). The seminar was co-hosted by Nyein (Shalom) Foundation.
Seminar theme: The role of Political Parties in Democratic Transitions
The seminar confirmed that the political parties in Myanmar are right now taking important new steps and
also facing a lot of challenges and opportunities. While the situation is unique there are useful lessons and
experiences to draw from globally.
Political parties play a particularly important role during political transition processes. During these
periods, political parties have to make the system work and begin to deliver on some of the expectations
that the public has invested in them. During transitional periods political parties have a very important role
to play in supporting and contributing to the new emerging political system. In the process of adapting to
their new roles of oversight, aggregation and representation of citizens’ interests and act as an interlocutor
between citizens and the state, they face many challenges, including delivering on some of the
expectations that the public has invested in them. This is the case in Myanmar and many other countries
that have undergone a transitional process.
The background document to the seminar was the DIPD Reader “Political Parties in Democratic
Transitions” (now available in English and Myanmar language, http://dipd.dk/dipdpublications/), which
shows interesting findings from the transitions in Indonesia, Turkey, Serbia and South Africa that might be
relevant for the political parties in Myanmar. The publication shows that despite every country and every
transition has its own distinctiveness, four themes emerge that reflect common, often very practical
challenges for parties:
Strengthening the political party organisation;
Establishing multiparty dialogue between political parties;
Negotiating space for democratic politics;
Responding to voter expectations: Representation and delivery;
2

The discussions during the seminar underlined that despite the many differences between countries and
their unique local contexts and local cultures, there are at the same time also many similarities between
the case studies presented. Key lessons from the South Africa, Nepal and Indonesia cases included the:
Importance of building personal relationships and trust between political actors as a foundation for a
sustainable political settlement;
Recognition that no sides gets everything that it wants: political dialogue and reform is all about
compromise and accommodation;
Necessity to ensure a democratic dividend for the population so that the positive words of reform and
change have a real impact in peoples’ lives, and;
Importance to invest in an (informal) multiparty dialogue process to enable parties to get to know each
other as political competitors and not enemies; to help build trust and confidence, promote
reconciliation and work out differences in a peaceful, constructive manner in the interest of national
unity and development.
Day 1: Tuesday 19 February 2013
1.1. Official Opening and Welcome
By seminar moderator Mrs Nang Raw Zakhung, Program Manager (Dialogue and Governance), Nyein
(Shalom) Foundation
The seminar moderator welcomed the participants who had travelled from near and far to attend the
seminar. In her speech she emphasized the following points:
The historic significance of the seminar: Many people have longed for a day such as today where
people and political parties from across the country come together to freely share ideas and reflect on
how to work together in the interest of the people of Myanmar. The road ahead is exciting and
uncertain – and filled with challenges and opportunities. How we respond to these will influence the
lives of future generations.
The importance of political parties: Representatives of political parties play a particularly important
role in shaping this nation. They are vehicles that offer the citizens the opportunity of involvement and
influence; can help the public understand, navigate and shape this process of transition; to build faith
and legitimacy in an emerging political system; help establish a common political culture: and
ultimately improve the lives of the people of Myanmar. In short, the performance of political parties is
critical in the establishment and longevity of democracy and development in Myanmar.
The nature of transitions: This country has embarked on a transition process, which makes
possible a different future. However, transition processes are periods of uncertainty. We know what
we are moving away from but not what we are moving towards. It is clear that we are in the midst of a
transition but not what we are transitioning to. For all political parties, a transition process is likely to
be characterised by periods of wins and losses, gains and failures, the end of some opportunities and
the emergence of new possibilities. What makes a difference is how parties build on success and
respond to perceived failure – how parties learn and move forward based on experience. And how
parties work together across party lines - for common interests and shared goals.
Furthermore, the seminar moderator outlined the seminar objectives and provided an overview of the
seminar participants and the international resource persons.
Mrs Nang Raw Zakhung welcomed the cooperation with DIPD and NIMD and introduced Nyein (Shalom)
Foundation, which was founded in May 2000. Since then, the foundation has been in the forefront of
peace-building processes in Myanmar and operates on a national level, with international links.
Registered with the Ministry of Home Affairs, it is actively involved in peace building, local development
and humanitarian support. More recently it has also focused on state-building activities such as civic
education, policy research, empowerment of political leaders, local leaders and other key stakeholders in
the development of a peaceful and democratic society in Myanmar.
3

Then she went through the seminar programme - and provided information about the media briefing
planned for end of day 2 (the seminar itself is open to participants only), registration and reimbursement,
and translation.
Finally, the moderator encouraged the participants to participate actively in the seminar and informed
about the use of Chatham Rules (the principle that one can share the content outside of the seminar but
not attribute any direct quotes to people). She emphasized that the seminar is for the participants and
their colleagues, encouraged them to make the most of the opportunity to meet other parties – and share
what they learn with others in their parties and constituencies.
1.2. Introduction to the Myanmar Multiparty Democracy Programme
By Mrs. Hanne Lund Madsen, Senior Adviser, Danish Institute for Parties and Democracy (DIPD)
Mrs Hanne Lund Madsen expressed appreciation to the seminar participants for their encouragement to
convene the seminar – and to Nyein (Shalom) Foundation for their cooperation.
Since June 2012 DIPD and NIMD and have been considering how to best support the political parties of
Myanmar in the democratic reform process. The seminar forms part of and is the first activity of the
Myanmar Multiparty Democracy Programme. She highlighted how DIPD and NIMD have consulted with
as many of the parties and participants as possible on how DIPD and NIMD could be of inspiration to the
participants and in which areas we could share experiences. She also expressed appreciation of having
met representatives from Myanmar in the Netherlands and in Denmark. In Denmark, DIPD met with the
multiparty delegation headed by the Speaker of Pyithu Hluttaw (Lower House of Parliament).
DIPD and NIMD were pleased to be able to share experiences of their partners in South Africa, Indonesia,
and Nepal - as well as global partner IDEA with the participants and thanked the international speakers for
coming. She introduced the small but dedicated team from DIPD and NIMD including Mrs Karijn de Jong
and Mrs Maaike van der Werf from NIMD, Ms Susanne Kempel, International Consultant living in Yangon
and Local Programme Coordinator Ms Khin Thazin Myint and herself working with DIPD, which is acting
as the lead on the joint Myanmar Multiparty Democracy Programme.
Mrs Hanne Lund Madsen expressed great excitement about the realisation of the seminar and the
participation of the political parties. As key stakeholders in the democratization process of Myanmar, they
are the ones engaging in the democratic dialogue – in Parliament, within political parties and in society at
large. Democratic dialogue and in particular multiparty dialogue is exactly the focus of both NIMD and
DIPD.
She went on to outline the following key points 1 :
Nature of DIPD and NIMD: Both organizations are formed by political parties for political parties.
DIPD and NIMD have been established by all political parties in the parliaments of the two countries
and are multiparty platforms. In NIMD all the parliamentary political parties are represented in the
Advisory Council - and in DIPD all the parliamentary political parties of Denmark are represented on
Governing Board and the institute is enacted by the Parliament and by national law. Together DIPD
and NIMD have democracy programmes in more than 25 countries.
Key principles of DIPD and NIMD: Throughout their programmes, DIPD and NIMD pursue a number
of key principles, which are also at front of their joint engagement in Myanmar.
- Non-partisan approach: DIPD and NIMD are neutral and do not take political sides. They support
the democratic roles of political parties and deepening of democracy – they do not support parties
to win elections.
- Inclusivity: DIPD and NIMD work with all parties and focus their activities to suit the challenges of
parties in parliament and parties outside parliament
1 Further information about DIPD and NIMD is available on www.dipd.dk and www.nimd.org
4

- Partnership: Partnership means a spirit of mutual respect, co-operation and joint determination of
plans and priority issues. For DIPD and NIMD the parliamentary political parties are their main
partners in Myanmar, but they will also engage with parties outside of parliament and build
cooperation with civil society organization etc.
- Local ownership: Local ownership of these processes and programmes means that the local
partners have control over this process through prioritizing the issues and activities that they wish to
tackle – they set the agenda.
- Long-term: DIPD and NIMD seek to commit their respective organisations to working in Myanmar
on a long term basis knowing that democratization is a long term process
Overall, DIPD and NIMD believe that partnership is about ideas changing minds and not money changing
hands. They can offer inspiration and acknowledge that democracy grows from within.
Pillars of the programme: To develop the Myanmar Multiparty Democracy Programme, DIPD and
NIMD have had very positive consultations in the form of roundtable discussions with political
networks, civil society organisations and individual meetings confirmed broad-based support for and
appreciation of the proposed three-pronged approach for the Myanmar Multiparty Democracy
Programme, focusing on:
- Facilitating an inclusive and impartial multiparty dialogue platform that addresses issues of national
concern.
- Strengthening the capacities of political parties in a cross-party setting for example through training.
- Enhancing the cooperation between political parties and civil society, the media and the private
sector around issues of mutual concern.
Specific work areas: The umbrella of the Myanmar Multiparty Programme will be multiparty dialogue
and the continued development and implementation of the programme will take place in cooperation
with the political parties. Some thematic areas have already been identified such as: Youth political
education and strengthening youth wings of the political parties; political party financing; role of media
and political parties; women in politics; the relationships between parties, MP and parliament.
Finally, Mrs Hanne Lund Madsen concluded by emphasizing that the seminar forms part of and is the first
activity of the Myanmar Multiparty Democracy Programme. She stressed that many political parties and
organisations in other countries are discussing the seminar theme ‘Political Parties in Democratic
Transitions’. She concluded by emphasizing that the organisations and speakers were looking forward to
being inspired by the participants in how to possibly work together, what issues to tackle and how best to
do it.
1.3. Summary Presentation on “The key roles of Political Parties in Democratic Transitions –
the common challenges and opportunities”
By Mr Thomas Cormier, Senior Adviser, International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance
(IDEA).
Mr Thomas Cormier opened by congratulating the parties for being at the seminar to discuss a very crucial
agenda regarding the political parties. He provided an overview of the main challenges and opportunities
for political parties in a democratic transition process. He drew up some of the key findings of the DIPD
reader ‘The Role of Political Parties in Democratic Transitions’ which has been translated to Myanmar
language and which serves as the background document to the seminar and the workshops. He in
particular stressed the need for:
Organizing Your Party to Participate Successfully in the Political Process
All parties will need to change - either by building a party from scratch or transforming existing
structures. Such change entails how to mobilise your members, how to develop your policies on
agriculture, health and other issues, how to manage your funds in a transparent manner, and how to
involve all groups including women and minorities in politics.
5

Establishing Multiparty Dialogues
Multiparty dialogues have been essential in many countries to help build consensus and trust, promote
reconciliation and solidify democratic transitions. While parties compete at elections they also need to
work together. What principles do the parties share in common? What are essential to all parties to
perform their democratic function?
Negotiating Space for Democratic Politics
The relationship between the state (government, army, institutions) and citizens and political actors is
being fundamentally redefined in a democratic transition. Hence there is a need to define the role of
the army, of the state and of the citizens anew.
Parties to respond to voters expectations both with regard to Representation and Delivery
Political parties are ultimately vehicles to reflect the diversity of the country, to respond to voter
expectations and help make life better for citizens in practical ways. It is not enough to make
promises, People also want to see real improvements in their livelihoods and freedoms.
The presentation was followed by a discussion where many questions and reflections were voiced.
Participants wondered about: How the cooperation with local government could be improved in order to
better deliver results for the communities? How other countries had ensured a level playing field where
there are two dominant parties? How conflicts can be resolved through dialogue? How to make parties
more democratic within their own structures?
Mr Tom Cormier stressed that many of the issues also persists in other countries – not only Myanmar –
and the search for better solutions continues. In this respect, democracy always needs investment in
building your party, in having dialogue also with your opponents, in defining the role of the military, in
finding development paths that will truly benefit in particular the rural areas.
1.4. Summary Presentation on “Experiences and Inspiration from a successful transition to
Democracy: the case of Indonesia”
By Dr Ignas Kleden, Chairperson of the Kommunitas Indonesia untuk Demokrasi (KID)
Discussant: Mr Aung Naing Oo, Director, Vahu Development Institute
In this presentation Dr Ignas Kleden described the transition or ‘rediscovery’ of democracy in Indonesia
through different periods. He emphasized that in his view, during Indonesia’s path to democracy there is
so far no evidence that political parties have played a significant role. Only between 1950-1952, when
Indonesia implemented liberal democracy, many parties were set up to demonstrate that democracy was
developing and thriving. This was an instable period, consensus was almost unreachable because of
fractions in parliament. There were frequent changes of cabinets and frequent and rising tensions
between the president and the vice-president.
Dr Ignas Kleden then outlined the developments during the following periods:
Guided democracy period (1957-1965)
The political parties had no power during Soekarno’s rule. During this period there was no attention for
economic policies, there was food shortage and inflation went up to 600%.
New order period (1967-1998)
After a period of military rule, Suharto was elected as president in 1967. Main features of the Sukarno
period were: unbridled competition between political parties that led to instability, neglect of economic
affairs and the concentration of power in one hand. The party Golkar was established by the president
as the sole active political party. Political opposition was officially ruled out because “conflict was
contradictory to the Indonesian culture of harmony”. Media during that time had “freedom with
responsibility”, a concept never elaborated upon which made many journalists uncertain.
6

Political reform period (1999-present)
Suharto stepped down in 1998 and a period of political reform followed with competition between the
executive and the legislative powers. Before the current president Yudhoyono there were three
transitional presidents who each made important contributions such as opening space for freedom of
expression for the press; holding a referendum regarding the independence of East Timor and the
return of the army to their barracks. President Yudhoyono was the first president to be peacefully
elected. The most important challenge now is to create a clean government and beat corruption. A
democracy looses power if top executives have too much power and prerogatives.
Dr Ignas Kleden emphasized the most important lessons learned in the course of political history:
1. The essential thing about democracy is that no one from outside can determine how the process
will develop. It has to come from inside the country itself.
2. It is dangerous to use an emergency situation to create democratic change. There is a risk that
emergencies are then used as a prerogative to concentrate power in one hand.
3. Democracy is not a universal system but is bound to history and socially and culturally defined.
4. The issue of politics should be institutionalized and not solely depend on individuals or great
personalities.
The presentation was followed by comments by the discussant Mr Aung Naing Oo who pointed out the
similarities between Myanmar and Indonesia: both have been colonized, have/had the dual function of the
army, freedom of the press, the issue of corruption and both embarked on a path towards multiparty
democracy.
During the ensuing discussion, participants raised questions such as: What made Indonesia change the
constitution? How did the Indonesian government gain trust and confidence of the people? Should
aspirations for change come from the dominant party or from other political parties?
Mr Ignas Kleden stated that the idea of political change cannot be decided in a certain point in time but it
is a longer process. Political parties can gain trust and confidence of the people when the set a good
example and do what they promise.
1.5. Summary Presentation on “Peaceful Political Accommodation: the case of South Africa”
By Mr Shaun Mackay, South African Researcher and Political Analyst
Discussant: Mrs Ma Thida (Sanchaung), writer and political commentator
In this presentation, Mr Shaun Mackay, South African Researcher and Political Analyst presented the
main challenges that were at the heart of the dialogue in South Africa's negotiated transition.
At the start of the process, South Africa was a closed society with a white oppressive government, where
blacks lived in reserved areas, 70% of the land was owned by 5% of white landowners and no space
existed for opposition groups to engage politically. A ban on political parties and deeply entrenched racial
and ethnic divisions existed as a result of a deliberate policy of divide and rule installed by the apartheid
regime and violent armed resistance.
The transition process can be characterised as a triple transition: from apartheid to democracy; from a
closed to an open economy; and, from armed conflict and military regime to a civilian regime. It started
with the release of a large number of political prisoners, including (black opposition leader) Nelson
Mandela. The structure chosen to negotiate the political settlement was a national convention (CODESA),
in which all registered political parties (allowed after the lifting of the ban) were represented including
armed resistance forces. This process was fully inclusive because it was politically impossible to take
decisions on the whole of the nation without involving all stakeholders. Decisions were made by
consensus. This caused problems and to break the deadlock, an innovative solution was found to move
the process forward in the form of the ‘’sufficient consensus formula” by which a sufficient number but not
all people/groups agree (rather than an absolute consensus where all must agree).
7

A critical challenge in the process was finding a balance between the fears of the white minority
(prosecution, persecution, loss of property etc.) and the aspirations of the black majority (universal adult
suffrage, proportional representation, share in economic wealth, nationalisation of national assets,
redistribution of wealth). These issues were dealt with though dialogue and compromise. No side got all it
wanted and both sides made important concessions. Since the successful political negotiations, the
government has made tremendous progress but corruption slows down the process. The democratic
dividend, ensuring that the political reforms also translate into real changes in people’s lives, is slow in
coming.
The key of the peaceful accommodation in South Africa can be summarised in the following points:
1. All sides had to make compromises on their demands and expectations.
2. Accommodating both the fears of an oppressive minority and the aspirations of a marginalised
majority.
3. Constitutional and institutional guarantees for those giving up their monopoly balanced against the
demands of a deprived majority.
4. The pivotal role of building trust between the negotiating partners including personal relationships for
a mutually acceptable accommodation.
5. Demilitarization and transformation of the liberation movements into organised political parties, has
helped to consolidate the transition.
6. The role of courageous, visionary and conciliatory leadership on both sides. 'Grand gesture' to unlock
the democratic stalemate and create the space for negotiation.
7. The transition remains incomplete.
The presentation was followed by comments by the discussant who noted the similarities and common
ground between the transition in Myanmar and South Africa. She questioned if Myanmar found itself in
partial or full transition and if it was enough to stop at multiparty democracy or if the country should go a
step further and strive for a federal system of governance to ensure that the voices of all ethnic groups are
sufficiently heard.
During the ensuing discussion, participants raised questions such as: How can non-parliamentary parties
play a role in a democratic transition to ensure that a sustainable political settlement is reached? What are
the advantages of South Africa’s list system of voting over a quota system for minority groups? Will a
system of proportional representation ensure more female candidates? How can ethnic and cultural
groups be accommodated to safeguard diversity and at the same time, move beyond ethnic identity and
put national identity to the forefront?
Mr. MacKay responded to the questions asked, amongst others by explaining the process of trust building
between ethnic groups in South Africa. He stated that is important for different groups to sit together often
so they can realise that they have more to lose when they act individually instead of working together.
1.6. Summary Presentation on: “The complexities of deepening democracy: the case of Nepal”
By Mr C.K. Lal, Nepalese Political Commentator
Discussant: Mrs Ardeth Thawnghmung, Professor, University of Massachusetts-Lowell
Mr C.K. Lal drew up the complexities of the multiparty democracy in Nepal and described the journey of
Nepal towards democracy alluding to many issues and in particular the seminar themes of strengthening
party politics and establishing multiparty dialogue around the constitution. He highlighted how Nepal
remained almost closed to the outside world for nearly 150 years. Following a brief flirtation with
parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy in the 1950s, parliament was dissolved in a royalmilitary
in 1960. It took 30 years of struggle to restore multiparty democracy and Nepal got a new
constitution in 1990. Following 10 years of armed insurgency and three years of royal-military rule,
parliamentary parties joined hands with the Maoists and succeeded in overthrowing the monarchy in
2008.
8

The constituent assembly, however, was dissolved without giving the country a new constitution. In a
review of nearly 25 years of competitive politics in Nepal, C.K. Lal showed that (a) Political parties are
vibrant, but their institutionalization is incomplete; thus also politics become very volatile and unpredictable
(b) Civil society is active but lacks sizable number of volunteers; (c) The press is fiercely free, but
sustainability and accountability is in doubt; (d) International influence in the politics of the country is
impossible to miss and one have to recognize that developing democracy must be considering both
internal and external factors carefully. (e) Civil-military relation is yet to be stabilized; the military still plays
an influential role and many measures have been put in place to ensure civil oversight of the military (f)
Identity politics has come to stay; it is still the personal qualities rather than the policies that the voters
unfortunately care about (g) Leaders have to balance their options between populism (group) and
paternalism (loyal coterie).
Mr C.K. Lal moreover underlined that the three main learnings of Buddha can also show the way for a
healthy democracy: Wisdom, Alliance and The Right Path. He also drew attention to the importance of the
choice of electoral system that fits each country best. There will always be advantages and disadvantages
in each system, but it is important to also to look for mixed electoral systems. Finally, he stressed that one
needs to write the constitution with a pen and not a gun and that all conflicts of interest cannot be solved
by parliament or courts. Nepal shows that you need well-established resolution mechanisms outside
courts and parliaments. Multiparty dialogue with a focus on co-habitation and cooperation is key to
strengthening democracy.
The presentation was followed by comments by the discussant Mrs Ardeth Thawnghmung who also noted
the many similarities between Nepal and Myanmar and in particular the quest for peace, the ethnic
complexities and how to ensure common ground in setting the course of the nation.
The participants had many questions in response to the presentation – mainly about a number of key
issues such as: The relationship between military and civil and if the role of the military is still felt in politics
today in Nepal; How the ethnic complexity of Nepal is dealt with in todays politics? Why the democratic
period in Nepal in the 1950ees did not last? What are the pros and cons of a mixed electoral system in
Nepal and how would it function in Myanmar?
Mr C. K. Lal responded in great detail to the many questions among other highlighting that the past role of
the military is still felt today in Nepal, but with increasing civil oversight and that the issue of ethnicity is still
on the agenda, but now peaceful talks are taking place.
In general participants agreed that they were interested in knowing more about the above themes and in
particular how to equip parties better for the democratic practice, to take good advice from electoral and
constitutional experts and learned mediators on conflict resolution mechanism.
1.7. Closing Session Day 1
By Mrs Karijn de Jong, Senior Programme Manager, Netherlands Institute for Multiparty Democracy
(NIMD)
On behalf of the three organizing institutes - DIPD, NIMD and Nyein (Shalom) Foundation - Karijn De Jong
extended a sincere thank you to the participants for taking the time and interest to join the seminar and
actively share views, insights, lessons and experiences on political transition processes in general and the
role of political parties more particularly.
In total 47 political parties across Myanmar’s political spectrum were present, which makes the gathering
unprecedented and truly inclusive and impartial. She expressed hope that the seminar will be just the start
of a long partnership between the organisations and the Myanmar political parties and a continuation of a
first step towards an inclusive process of inclusive multiparty dialogue and cooperation in Myanmar.
The deliberations have been very inspiring and insightful and hopefully all participants have captured the
richness of the discussions and leave with further ideas, reflections and food for thought to further
cultivate Myanmar’s democratic transition process. Mrs Karijn de Jong hoped that all the participants take
away at least one idea that he/she will take forward in terms of strengthening their own party organisations
and/or further strengthening multiparty dialogue and cooperation.
9

Myanmar’s transition process is still young and incomplete. Also, it will be a long and bumpy road and
undoubtedly with meet many potholes, detours and setbacks on the way. However, the deliberations on
the first day of the seminar have clearly confirmed that Myanmar has entered a new era, in which the need
for dialogue, consensus building and national unity is strongly recognized and underlined. The discussions
confirmed that all participants are all on the same road toward achieving this. As a wise saying goes:
“Every 1000 miles journey starts with a first step”.
Mrs Karijn de Jong noted that the discussions during the first day of the seminar also underlined that
despite the many differences between countries and their unique local contexts and local cultures, there
are at the same time also many similarities between the case studies presented. She highlighted a few
that emerged from the presentations:
The critical importance of building personal relationships and trust between political actors as a
foundation for a durable political agreement.
The recognition that no side gets everything that it wants: political dialogue and reform is all about
compromise and accommodation to ensure a sustainable political settlement.
The importance to ensure a democratic dividend for the population that translates the nice words on
reform and change also into tangible results at local level.
The critical importance to invest in multiparty dialogue process to get to know each other as political
competitors and not enemies; to help build trust and confidence, promote reconciliation and work out
differences in a peaceful, constructive manner in the interest of national unity and development.
She used the words of the Secretary General of the ruling party in Ghana: “Multiparty dialogue is all about
learning to disagree, without becoming disagreeable”.
Mrs Karijn De Jong emphasized that DIPD and NIMD will carefully reflect on the input from the
participants input during day 1 and day 2 - and will use the ideas and suggestions to further design the
Myanmar Multiparty Programme that is focused on three key pillars, namely:
Facilitating multiparty dialogue
Party strengthening and training
Building relations between political parties and civil society and the media
To help further shape the joint programme, she encouraged the participants to liaise with the locally-based
staff, particularly Ms Khin Thazin Myint, and also indicate the names of a contact person and an alternate
in the respective parties to allow for information sharing on next steps and activities.
1.8. Informal Dinner Reception
Seminar day 1 was concluded with an informal dinner reception, which was an opportunity for seminar
participants and a few invited guests from civil society, international organisations and diplomatic
missions to share their reflections.
10

Day 2: Wednesday 20 February 2013
2.1. Workshop 1: Strengthening Political Party Organisation: Challenges and ways forward in
Myanmar
By Mr Thomas Cormier and local co-facilitator Mr Aung Kyaw Phyo, Myanmar Institute for Democracy
(MID)
Functional and effective democracy depends upon accountable leaders who represent the interests of the
electorate and articulate their needs and aspirations through policy and action. In this context, the
workshop facilitated a dialogue on the key themes of organisational development, policy development,
internal party democracy, and membership and local anchorage. It focused on the specific priorities and
needs of political parties in Myanmar in relation to:
What are the two things that make a political party successful anywhere in the world?
What are the two biggest challenges to building a successful political party in Myanmar?
What are two things political parties can do now they could not do three years ago?
Where are two sources of ideas political parties use to inform solutions to problems facing Myanmar?
The workshop began with a round of introductions in which participants interviewed each other on who
they are, what party they represent and why politics is fun. The responses reflected that participants
belong to different generations and different parts of the country. Some have been engaged in politics for
a long time while others just recently became politically active. Their reasons for entering the political
arena were rather similar and mainly related to a commitment towards promoting inclusion, development
and securing a bright future for the country and their respective ethnic group.
Discussion
After this introductory round, each participant was tasked with reflecting on the four questions outlined
below. The larger group was divided into four subgroups, which each had to prioritise the top five
responses for the respective question; name three practical things that members of a political party can do
to help the party gain support; and suggest ways in which the parties could communicate to its members.
The following is a summary of the responses by subgroup:
1. What are the two things that make a political party successful anywhere in the world?
Participants mentioned that transparency, strong and good policies and unity are important elements
defining the success of a political party. Furthermore it is crucial that the party responds to the aspirations
of the people and have the support of the people. In order to do so the party should nominate people of
quality and broaden its member base. Finding sufficient funding and resources is also very important. The
party can communicate to its members and others by having a party office, holding regular meetings,
resolving issues and through exposure to the community.
Mr Thomas Cormier added the suggestion that parties can communicate to its members by using mobile
text messages to provide information (as an alternative to calling a meeting) and writing newsletters. A
party member can attract support by getting involved in the community, get to know what is going on and
bring this information back to the party. The party itself should disseminate information, write papers and
distribute them. It is also good to use the media to communicate who is competing for which party and
what the party stands for.
2. What are the two biggest challenges to building a successful political party in Myanmar?
Participants mentioned that the lack of sufficient funds is a great challenge for almost all of the political
parties in Myanmar. They also mentioned the importance of leadership. In addition, there is a lack of
campaigning skills and political knowledge is limited. To overcome these challenges the parties need to
raise funds, build capacity within their respective parties including the party leader, raise political
awareness (voters education) and resolve issues amongst the various political parties. Political parties
11

could also invest more time in negotiating their differences, try to find a common agenda on which they
can cooperate and seek a dialogue with officials.
3. What are two sources of ideas your party can use to help it think of solutions to problems facing
Myanmar?
The group prioritized an all-inclusive dialogue, trust building, hearing and listening to peoples’ voices and
capacity building of the general population as the main sources to find solutions to problems facing
Myanmar. When parties want to understand and propose solutions to problems facing the educational and
agricultural sector, the group identified the following possibilities: Meeting the academia, consultants, civil
society, government and doing more research by the parties.
Mr Thomas Cormier emphasized that it is important to find the right people to reach out to when your party
seeks more information on specific topics. You could try to identify new party members with a specific
background so they can share their knowledge and experience on certain party policies for example. It is
important to be smart and inclusive, parties should therefore make sure that young people and women are
sufficiently integrated in their party and in its general policies instead of creating a separate youth or
women’s wing. Furthermore Mr Tom Cormier pointed out that political parties do not have to take on the
responsibility of having all the knowledge themselves. Instead, parties have to engage with people who do
such as scholars, civil society, the general population, etc.
4. What are the two things political parties can do now that they could not do three years ago?
Participants mentioned that important changes in the last three years are the freedom of expression,
freedom of campaigning and freedom of the media. Moreover, the number of people interested in politics
has increased. The fact that political parties can now negotiate amongst each other is an important
opportunity, which the parties need to make more use of. Parties should further promote the general
interest in politics and make use of the freedom of campaigning. Mr Tom Cormier indicated that the
growing freedom of the media is also an opportunity because all new newspapers need stories to fill their
pages and are therefore receptive to information from, amongst others, the political parties. It is therefore
important to engage with the media. It is important that party members, NGOs and the media all know
what a political party represents; who represents it; that the public knows that the party is involved in
society; and that it cares about what is going on. Having such a party identity might also inspire new
members to join in the political process.
2.2. Workshop 2: Facilitating a Multiparty Dialogue: Challenges and ways forward in Myanmar
By Mr Shaun MacKay and local co-facilitator Mr Khine Win, Sandhi Management School
This session focused on facilitating a multiparty dialogue. As a source of inspiration for political
practitioners from Myanmar, it focused on the role and modalities of informal dialogue platforms in
countries where NIMD and DIPD work. Political parties have a critical role in fostering the creation of a
system, which encourages dialogue and interaction. The tone of political discussion will be determined by
the way in which parties engage with each other. But the shift from authoritarian regime to a more
democratic rule is likely to reveal many tensions that would previously have been suppressed. Transitions
involve people learning to interact with each other on a new basis and that negotiation and compromise
do not constitute weakness, but rather represent a healthy part of living in a democracy. For parties that
dialogue will often result in different political actors recognising that they have common objectives.
The workshop particularly facilitated a dialogue around the following questions:
Why it is important to have an informal multiparty platform outside parliament?
How do you start an informal multiparty dialogue process?
How do you structure a multiparty dialogue platform?
At the outset of the workshop Mr Shaun MacKay emphasized the importance of trust and confidence as
critical ingredients for effective dialogue and cooperation. First, he stressed, politicians need to get to
12

know each other at a personal level as human beings, only then can they get to know each other as
political beings.
Mr Shaun MacKay went on to cover the following points:
1. Why it is important to have an informal platform outside parliament?
He provided three key reasons:
Consensus seeking: An informal platform lends itself to consensus seeking, opposed to parliament
where politicians are involved in a debate and it is often more about scoring points rather than seeking
compromise and consensus. Playing for the gallery, as is often the case in parliament, misses out on
the opportunity to really listen and understand each other.
Equality: Power relations in a formal setting like parliament are very different. Often there is little time
to discuss and exchange views and the big parties often dominate debate. In an informal setting, all
parties are equal and in a position to freely and equally share their positions.
Weak linkages between the parties and the members of parliament: The views expressed in
parliament do not necessarily express the party’s viewpoint but the individual MPs position. An
informal platform allows the parties to exchange the party’s positions on policy issues.
He furthermore highlighted two general key characteristics of NIMD/DIPD facilitated platforms:
Inclusive nature: All parliamentary political parties are represented and in a number of countries the
non-parliamentary parties also have a seat.
Confidentiality: Each party is allowed to express itself openly with a view to seeking compromise. In
the glary of the public, compromise is often not possible. Clear rules of engagement need to be
defined to enable the platform to work effectively and transparently and on the basis of mutual trust.
2. How do you start the informal dialogue process?
To start the dialogue process and embark on the agenda setting phase, it is often useful and strategic to
select less contentious issues at the beginning, to ensure some early successes and get the process
moving. More contentious issues can then be tackled at a later stage when a sound foundation has been
laid. Once agreement is reached at the informal platform on a certain reform agenda, it has to be
presented to parliament. Because the platform consists of all parliamentary parties, it is easier to do this
as consensus has already been reached. Two aspects are important to make it work. First, the process of
exchange between the parties and the parliamentary caucus is very essential. The caucus needs to be
briefed and closely engaged on the policy process so they can advocate the common positions in
parliament. A second key requirement is the need to develop policy capacity in the party to be able to
develop and analyse alternative policies.
3. How do you structure the dialogue platform?
Structures vary from country to country depending on the local context. In some countries, the dialogue is
facilitated by an NGO, who acts as the secretariat. Or it could be an autonomous structure established by
the participating political parties. In that case, the Secretary Generals (SGs) of the participating political
parties make up the Board of these structures. The SGs have the autonomy to speak on behalf of the
party and have the authority to represent the party. In some countries, (above the Council of SGs- the
dialogue council), a Summit of Presidents is also established that meets twice a year to discuss strategic
issues and endorse the reform agenda. Experience teaches that difficult issues that cannot be tackled in
parliament can often be addressed in such an informal forum that allows for more time for debates and
can provide the necessary research and support capacity. The various platforms established in the
various countries form part of a network. The exchange of experiences and mutual learning has proved
very helpful to the political parties of different countries..
Discussion
Following Mr Shaun MacKay’s introduction, participants were divided into four groups to identify the key
issues for agenda setting in Myanmar and to discuss capacity building requirements for parties in an
multiparty dialogue platform. The groups discussed the importance of several issues, which is
summarised below:
13

Conducting capacity building of political parties on party organisation, party funding and political party
campaigning in a cross-party setting and on an equal basis.
Carrying out civic education/democracy education for political leaders and their cadre and the general
population
Promoting rule of law - especially in rural areas people are not able to exercise their rights.
Establishing a informal multiparty dialogue platform outside of parliament is critical especially to
change the constitution in an inclusive way.
Promoting the role of women in Parliament through affirmative action.
Engaging the private sector and local artists in the political discourse.
Seek to counteract brain drain from Myanmar and promote “brain gain”.
2.3. Workshop 3: Responding to voter expectations: Representation and Delivery - Challenges
and ways forward in Myanmar
By Mr C.K. Lal and a local co-facilitator Ms Khin Su Myat Tun, Myanmar Egress
In this workshop, the challenges, dilemmas and opportunities for responding to voter expectations were
discussed. The shift to representative politics presents a steep learning curve for political parties. The
leaders of the transition must be capable of inspiring and exciting people, but at the same time, they must
convince the populace that sometimes they will have to wait, and adjust their demands to the reality of the
political situation. Political parties need to be responsive to public opinion, but ultimately, they also have a
responsibility for leading and shaping public opinion according to what is realistic.
The shift to representative politics presents a steep learning curve for political parties. The leaders of the
transition must be capable of inspiring and exciting people, but at the same time, they must convince the
populace that sometimes they will have to wait, and adjust their demands to the reality of the political
situation. Political parties need to be responsive to public opinion, but ultimately, they also have a
responsibility for leading and shaping public opinion according to what is realistic.
This workshop facilitates a dialogue around:
What are the key expectations of the citizens in Myanmar in the democratisation processes with
regard the conduct and policies of the political parties?
How can political parties accommodate the different views of various social groups and ethnic groups
and help promote reconciliation, understanding and peace?
How can political parties facilitate democratic knowledge and practice among citizens; and
improvements in citizens’ general livelihoods and wellbeing?
How do parties collect the needs and interests of their electorate? What are the challenges in
engaging with/involving citizens? How can it be improved?
Mr C.K. Lal asked what features do voters expect from a political party and from a political leader?
Ultimately, however, the long-term success of political parties depends on what they do in between
election campaigns rather than during them.
As an icebreaker, Mr C.K. Lal asked the workshop participants to decide their preferred way of decision
making in this workshop: by voting, consensus or by decision of their leader. The participants were also
invited to identify their favourite Myanmar political party other than their own party - and choose a
preferred party leader of their choice (international or local).
Discussion
In a participatory setting, in which workshop participants were divided into four working groups, the
following set of questions were addressed:
1. What are the key expectations of citizen in Myanmar in terms of policies and conduct of political
affairs?
2. How can political parties accommodate the differences between various local groups?
3. How can political parties disseminate political knowledge and practise amongst the citizens?
4. How do political parties collect the needs and interest of the electorate and how can these methods be
improved in Myanmar?
14

5. What do voters in Myanmar expect from their political parties?
6. How do political parties in Myanmar select their candidates?
7. What is the organisational strength of political parties in Myanmar? Leadership, cadre, something
else?
8. On what basis do voters cast their votes?
The four groups made the following general suggestions to political parties.
Collecting views from voters: Opinion polls, door-to-door visits by your cadre, radio and TV
programmes, internal debates.
Presenting needs and concerns of the citizens: Through representation in the Union Parliament and
regional/state parliaments, contributions in radio and TV programmes and newspapers.
Responding to needs: Stay in constant contact with members and voters and brief them on your
activities, progress, and successes.
Feedback and improvement: Keep an on-going information loop with the electorate and members.
2.4. Workshop 4: Democracy Schools in Indonesia: building democracy from below - Challenges
and ways forward in Myanmar
By Dr Ignas Kleden and local co-facilitator Mr Han Soe Tun, Yangon School of Political Science
In recognition of the need for a long-term investment in the building of a democratic culture in Indonesia,
Kommunitas Indonesia untuk Demokrasi (KID) was established in 2004. KID’s mission is to strengthen
democracy through political education and political dialogue through so-called Democracy Schools. The
aim of the Democracy Schools is to train young politicians, social activists and professionals in democratic
values, skills and practices and contribute to a new generation of well-trained democratic political
practitioners and future leaders across political party lines and in doing so, contribute to Indonesia’s
democratic culture and the opening up of political space. Dr. Ignas Kleden touched upon the following four
dimensions in his presentation.
Reasons for establishing schools
1) No such education was available in the country and also not in the political parties (only few parties
had education and training within the party)
2) Give necessary and practical knowledge for the political activists of democracy
3) Schools at the district level especially in order to reach the citizens that previously had suffered from
a ban on political party activity at the local level thus rendering them particular isolated from political
developments and participation.
What type of democracy do we teach?
What kind of democracy should we teach? Dr. Ignas Kleden argued that democracy is a universal concept
and cannot be curtailed by excuse of history or emergency situations. It is possible to compare our
democracies across continents. But the universal values, principles and ideas must be translated into the
actual context and concrete, local and cultural meaning of democracy must be fostered. Citizens will need
to realize the importance and guard the democratic principles within their own society.
What are our target groups for the training?
It has been decided to focus on four groups of participants for the training: Political parties, government,
business Community and civil society (NGOs, media, etc.). This is a good mix and will help each
community appreciate the role of the other in promoting and safeguarding democratic development. It is
moreover mandatory to have 30% women as participants. The aim is not to train political party leaders,
but to inform citizens to engage actively in society.
Components of our training and training approach
The training covers three main areas.
15

a) Basic knowledge about democracy and democratic processes
b) Basic values and convictions relating to democracy – you need to believe in democracy to make it
work
c) Democratic Skills and Tools (needed for political activism)
Moreover, the training emphasises both in-class teaching and out of class training where the participants
visit villages, government institutions and NGOs and learn how to tackle concrete issues of concern to the
communities. The training run for one year during weekends and is thus a very intensive training with end
of term exams and written test.
Discussion
The discussion session was very lively and showed great interest in education on democracy. Many asked
about the documented experiences and impact of the democracy school training and the ways in which
the knowledge of the students can be disseminated further to benefit more people – i.e. through Training
of Trainers (ToT) and community committees. Many considered what type of democracy education that
would best fit Myanmar.
The group work concluded that democratic values are universal and that representation, accountability
and responsibility are centre stage in any democracy. Human rights of the citizens likewise. Moreover, the
readiness to accept the voice of the people and hand over power is also essential in any democracy.
2.5. Closure of the seminar and workshop and looking ahead (plenary)
By Mrs Ja Nan Lahtaw, Assistant Director of Nyien (Shalom) Foundation (Program and International
Relations) and by Miss Khin Thazin Myint, DIPD/NIMD Programme Coordinator
As a closure remark, Mrs Ja Nan Lahtaw thanked the participants on behalf of the organising institutions.
She then went on to emphasize the following points.
Challenging factor of Myanmar transition period: Myanmar society has been deeply divided as
a result of protracted conflict that has been unresolved for over six decades. Currently the country
is going through a transition from a military rule to establishing a democratic government. As the
society has been divided over ethnic line, religious line and political line, the mistrust between
different groups is one challenging factor to address during the transition period.
The significance of the seminar: The seminar today is bringing politicians from diverse political
parties and some government institutions and civil society. This is a significant step in a
transitional period. Normally, people from different ethnic groups, religious organizations and
political organizations do not naturally come together. During the very first Pyithu Lutthaw session,
Mrs Ja Nan Lahtaw once asked some Members of Parliament whether they interact with MPs
from their opposition parties including USDP and military representatives during the break. There
was a fear to interact with those who are from the opposition parties due to mistrust with each
other. That was almost two years ago when the first Pyithu Lutthaw session was convened.
Today, this seminar is a witness that a dialogue between multi-parties is a value for building
democratic society. It is significant that today, in this seminar, we have politicians represented
from 47 political parties out of 54 political parties currently registered.
The importance of political dialogue: Finally, Mrs Ja Nan Lahtaw expressed her hope that this
seminar would be the beginning of a continued dialogue between politicians those who have
different opinions, ideas, strategies and visions. Regardless of the differences, the trust must be
nourished and further dialogue opportunity between parties will be possible after this seminar.
Additionally, she concluded saying that the organising institutions do believe that a dialogue is an
essential way to further develop democratic institutions and society.
By Miss Khin Thazin Myint, DIPD/NIMD Programme Coordinator
Khin Thazin Myint made the final closure and thanked everyone for participating and for the lively
workshops and the good exchange of experiences and ideas. She hoped that each participant would
16

share their observations of the seminar with colleagues and other party members. She also reminded that
the background document to the seminar is now available in local language for everyone to have a copy
with them home. Acting as the local programme coordinator of this newly initiated programme in
Myanmar, Khin Thazin Myint, stressed that she was looking forward to developing the relationship with
each of all the parties in the months to come and she underlined that the parties should not hesitate to
take contact with her. As part of developing the programme and deciding on the next activities, there will
also be further consultations with political parties and local resource institutions.
Biographies of international speakers and international organisers
Thomas Cormier
Mr Thomas Cormier is the Senior Programme Officer in Myanmar for the International Institute for
Democracy and Electoral Assistance (International IDEA). Mr Thomas Cormier has over 20 years of
international experience in democratic governance and has been involved in Canadian provincial and
federal politics for over a decade including being an advisor to several elected Members of Parliament.
Working internationally for over a decade, Tom has designed and directed numerous democratic
development and human rights projects and programs in a variety of challenging and dynamic political
environments in Europe, Eurasia, Asia, the Americas and Africa. Mr Cormier graduated from Carleton
University in Ottawa with a degree in Political Science and Economics and holds a Certificate in Project
Management from the Regenesys School of Public Management in South Africa.
Ignas Kleden
Dr Ignas Kleden is one of the founding members of KID which stands for Indonesian Community for
Democracy, in 2004, which is the first partner of NIMD in Asia. Until today Dr Ignas Kleden is entrusted to
be the Chairman of the Board of the organization for two consecutive periods. He is also one of the
founding members of several civil society organizations, among others the Community for Political and
Economic Studies (SPES) (1988), Media Research Ignas Kleden & Associates/MRIKA, Jakarta (2001),
the Go-East Institute (2000) and Center for East Indonesian Affairs (2000), Jakarta. From 1999-2005 he
was appointed as the President of the Indonesian Committee for the KAAD (Catholic Academic Exchange
Service of Germany), member of Indonesian Committee of DAAD (German Academic Exchange Service).
He is an active lecturer at the University of Indonesia and a regular contributor of papers, articles and
books on social sciences and political affairs in Indonesia. Mr Kleden has studied philosophy and
theology, obtained his master degree in philosophy at Hochschule Für Philosophie, Munich, Germany
(1981), and a doctorate in development sociology at the University of Bielefeld, Germany (1995).
Shaun Mackay
Mr Shaun Mackay is a South African researcher and political analyst. He has worked at the South African
Institute of Race Relations (SAIRR); South Africa's first Independent Electoral Commission (which
oversaw the country's first non-racial elections in 1994); the Centre for Policy Studies (CPS); and NIMD.
He has conducted extensive research on South Africa's transition during the period 1990-1994
and constitutional developments and reform and facilitated the dialogue process with political parties. He
is currently facilitating the Interparty Dialogue process in Uganda on behalf of NIMD.
Chandra Kishor Lal (C.K. Lal)
Mr C.K. Lal is a highly esteemed political commentator in Nepal. In 2006, he was voted the most influential
columnist of Nepal. Lal has contributed several articles to academic journals and newspapers on
democratisation, human rights and political transition in Nepal. His book, Human Rights, Democracy and
Governance was published in early 2010 (Pearson, New Delhi). In 2011, Martin Chautari has also
published his ‘vision paper’ on the future of Nepali identity, Nepaliya Hunala, along with commentaries by
more than 20 of the leading politicians and thinkers of Nepal. Together with DIPD, Lal facilitated several
multiparty dialogues in Nepal. C.K. Lal has studied civil engineering, public administration, law and urban
planning in India and Nepal.
17

Hanne Lund Madsen
Mrs Hanne Lund Madsen is Senior Adviser at Danish Institute for Parties and Democracy (DIPD)
established by the Danish Parliament in 2010. She is responsible for the overall democracy support
provided in partnerships with political parties and for the Myanmar Multiparty Democracy Programme.
Having served as an adviser in the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs and having acted as consultant to
governments, NGOs and donors she has extensive experience within democratic governance in more
than 30 countries in Africa, Asia, Central America, the Balkans and the Pacific. Hanne holds a Master of
Science in International Development & Geography from Denmark and a Master in International Human
Rights Law and Humanitarian Law from Sweden.
Karijn de Jong
Mrs Karijn de Jong is Senior Programme Manager at the Netherlands Institute for Multiparty Democracy
(NIMD) based in The Hague. She is responsible for strategic planning, policy development and
institutional fundraising and manages the programmes in Uganda and Myanmar. She has extensive
experience in working on democratisation, good governance, the rule of law, budget support, public sector
reform, electoral assistance, constitutional and legal reform and support to civil society in Africa. Prior to
joining NIMD, she worked in Kenya and Ghana for 5 years for the British Department for International
Development (DfID). Karijn has a legal background with a specialization in European and International
Law.
18

Annex 1: Seminar agenda
Day 1: Tuesday 19 February 2013
08:30-09:00 Registration and coffee/tea
09:00-09:15 Official Opening, word of welcome
Introduction of the Seminar objectives and proceeding by seminar moderator
Mrs Nang Raw Zakhung, Peace Program Manager (Shalom (Nyein)
Foundation)
09:15-09:30 Introduction to the Myanmar Multiparty Democracy Programme
Mrs Hanne Lund Madsen, Senior Adviser (DIPD)
09:30-10:30 Presentation on: “The Key Roles of Political Parties in Democratic
Transitions: common challenges and opportunities”, followed by Q&A
10.30-11.00 Tea Break
Mr Thomas Cormier, Senior Adviser, International Institute for Democracy and
Electoral Assistance (IDEA)
11.00-12.30 Presentation on: “Experiences and Inspiration from a successful
transition to Democracy: the case of Indonesia”, followed by comments
by discussant and Q&A
12.30-13.30 Lunch
Dr Ignas Kleden, Chairperson of the Kommunitas Indonesia untuk Demokrasi
(KID)
13.30-15.00 Presentation on: “Peaceful Political Accommodation: the case of South
Africa”, followed by comments by discussant and Q&A
15.00-15.30 Tea Break
Mr Shaun Mackay, South African Researcher and Political Analyst
15.30-17.00 Presentation by: “The Complexity of Deepening Democracy: the case of
Nepal”, followed by comments by discussant and Q&A
Mr C.K. Lal, Nepalese Political Commentator
17.00-17.30 Closure and way forward
By Mrs Karijn de Jong, Programme Manager (NIMD),
17.30-20.00 Refreshment and informal dinner reception
19

Day 2: Wednesday 20 February 2013
08.30-09.00 Registration and coffee/tea
09.00-11.30 Workshop 1: Strengthening Political Party Organisation
By Mr Thomas Cormier, International Institute for Democracy and Electoral
Assistance (IDEA)
Local co-facilitator: Mr Aung Kyaw Phyo, Myanmar Institute for Democracy
09.00-11.30 Workshop 2: Facilitating a Multiparty Dialogue
11.30-12.00
12.00-12.15
12.15-13.15 Lunch
13:15-15.45
13:15-16.45
15.45-16.15
16:15-16.30
17.00-18.00
By Mr Shaun Mackay, South African Researcher and Political Analyst
Local co-facilitator: Mr Khine Win, Sandhi Management School
Sharing of discussions from morning workshops (plenary)
By workshop co-facilitators
Closure (morning sessions) and looking ahead (plenary)
By Ms Khin Thazin Myint, DIPD/NIMD Programme Coordinator
Workshop 3: Responding to voter expectations: Representation and
Delivery
By M. C.K. Lal, Nepalese Political Commentator
Local co-facilitator: Khin Su Myat Tun, Egress
Workshop 4: Political Education: An Introduction to the Democracy
Schools in Indonesia
By Dr Ignas Kleden, Kommunitas Indonesia untuk Demokrasi (KID)
Local co-facilitator: Mr Han Soe Tun, Yangon School of Political Science
Sharing of discussions from morning workshops (plenary)
By workshop co-facilitators
Closure and looking ahead (afternoon session) (plenary)
By Ms Khin Thazin Myint, DIPD/NIMD Programme Coordinator
Briefing for invited media (optional)
By Ms Khin Thazin Myint, speakers and DIPD/NIMD representatives
20

Annex 2: Participant List
NO NAME TITLE/POSITION PARTY/ORGANISATION
1 John Bosko Youth Leader Kayan National Party
2 Khun Clement Joint Secretary (3) Kayan National Party
3 Saw Maung Toke CEC Kayin Peoples Party
4 Mi John Tei Nwan Youth Leader All Mon Regions Democracy Party
5 Khine Khine Win
The Union of Myanmar Federation
of National Politics
6 Hang Dal Youth Leader Chin National Party
7 Sai Hlaing Myint Oo CEC
Tai-Leng Nationalities
Development Party
8 U Zaw Myint Aye CEC Danu National Democracy Party
9 Ko Han Soe Tun Trainer Yangon School of Political Science
10 U Kyaw Tun Aung CEC Arakan League for Democracy
11 U Hla Myint Chairman (Yangon) Arakan League for Democracy
12 Zam Za Mung Secretary Zomi Congress for Democracy
13 Aye Aye Khaing Secretary Peace for Diversity Party
14 U Aung Myint General Secretary Peace for Diversity Party
15 Sai Aung Thein Public Relations
Shan Nationalities League for
Democracy
16 Hla Myint Chairman United Democratic Party
17 Khin Ko Latt Youth Organizer United Democratic Party
18 Min Wunna Gyi CEC All Mon Regions Democracy Party
21

19 Ma Khin Thit Lwin The 88 Generation Student Youths
20 Tun Kyaw Oo Patron Rakhine
21 U Than Tun EC New National Democracy Party
22 U Than Zaw Aung CEC Democratic Party (Myanmar)
23 U Nai Kun Chan CEC All Mon Regions Democracy Party
24 Soe Myint Aung National Democratic Institute
25 Khine Win Sandhi Management School
26 Cindy Joelene Research Associate MDRI/CESD
27 Myo Khine Htoo Information Officer Phan Tee Eain
28 Nandar Htut Intern Phan Tee Eain
29 Nay Min Kyaw Secretary National Democratic Force
30 Sang Hlai Mang Secretary (1) Ethnic National Development Party
31 Kyaw Thura CEC National Democratic Force
32 Myo Yan Naung Thein Director Bayda Institute
33 Zin Mar Oo Bayda Institute
34 U Myo Nyunt General Secretary Party for Democracy and Peace
35 U Min Naing General Secretary Union National Development Party
36 U Aung San Myint General Secretary Union National Development Party
37 U Yaw Tha Chairman La Hu National Development Party
38 U Lu Tar Member La Hu National Development Party
22

39 U Mai Ohn Khine CEC Ta-Arng (Palaung) National Party
40 U Kyar Tun CEC Ta-Arng (Palaung) National Party
41 U Ohn Lwin Vice-Chairman
42 Daw Khin Than Soe General Secretary
Myanmar Farmers' Development
Party
Myanmar Farmers' Development
Party
43 U Naing Khin Maung CEC All Mon Regions Democracy Party
44 Daw Nay Yee Member National League for Democracy
45 U Han Win Lwin CEC Party for Democracy and Peace
46 U Kan Lam Khap CEC Zomi Congress for Democracy
47 U Khun Tin Htut Member Pao National Organization
48 U Saw Mya CEC Chin Progressive Party
49 U Muhammed Saleen CEC
50 U Aung Win CEC
National Development and Peace
Party
National Development and Peace
Party
51 U Thein Tun CEC National Unity Party
52 U Kyaw Mya Oo Political Committee National Unity Party
53 U Tun Shwe General Secretary Party for Unity and Peace
54 Daw Lai Lai Win Swe CC
55 Daw Aye Min Moe CE (Division)
56 U San Tha Aung
57 Sai San Mon EC
Union Solidarity and Development
Party
Union Solidarity and Development
Party
Mro or Khami National Solidarity
Organization
Shan Nationalities League for
Democracy
23

58 U Sai Kyaw Thu Assistant Director Union Election Commission
59 Dr. Aung Zaw Tun CEC New National Democracy Party
60 Mai Su Su Hlaing Women Committee Chin National Party
61 U Tin Maung Aye Member
62 U Hla Toe Vice-Chairman
63 U Thein Shwe
Myanmar Farmers' Development
Party
Ka Man National Development
Party
Ka Man National Development
Party
64 U Aung Aung CC Modern People Party
65 U Aung Ko Ko Tun Organizer Myanmar National Congress
66 U Aye Lwin Chairman
The Union of Myanmar Federation
of National Politics
67 U That Myo Htway CEC National Political Alliance League
68 Aye Aye Mar National League for Democracy
69 Dr. Daw Myint kyi Member Union Election Commission
70 Daw Yee Yee San CEC Modern People Party
71 U Thu Wai Chairman Democratic Party (Myanmar)
72 Daw Su Su Chaw CEC Myanmar National Congress
73 Aung Ko Ko Independent Candidate
74 Dr Nyo Nyo Thin MP Independent Candidate
75 U Ye Tun Chairman The 88 Generation Student Youths
76 Myo Zaw Htoo Reporter Radio Free Asia
77 Kyaw Thu Reporter Radio Free Asia
24

78 U Maung Kyaw Khine
79 U Sein Hla Kyaw
Kha Me National Development
Party
Kha Me National Development
Party
80 U Aye tun Mro Nationality Party
81 U Ran Rai Mro Nationality Party
82 U Ye Lwin
83 U Khin Maung Myint
84 U Tun Kyaw Oo
85 U Saw Chit Than
National Democratic Party for
Development
National Democratic Party for
Development
Rakhine State National United
Party of Myanmar
Kayin State Democracy and
Development Party
86 Aung Kyaw Phyo Director Myanmar Institute for Democracy
87 Sai Khan Mai Sai
88 Nan Sanda Aung
Shan Nationalities Democratic
Party
Shan Nationalities Democratic
Party
89 U Aung Than Tint Chairman Party for Unity and Peace
90 U Tun Shwe GS Party for Unity and Peace
91 Maung Aye Kying Chairman
92 U Nyi Nyi CEC
Rakhine State National United
Party of Myanmar
Rakhine State National United
Party of Myanmar
93 Mi Lin Lin Mon Member Mon Democracy Party
94 Daw Khin Sein Myiint CEC
95 Saw Nyan Min Member
Tai-Leng Nationalities
Development Party
Kayin State Democracy and
Development Party
25

96 Thu Rein Consultant Myanmar Institute for Democracy
97 U San Kyaw Hla CEC
98 U Phoe Min CC
99 U Myint Htay CC (Township)
Rakhine Nationalities Development
Party
Rakhine Nationalities Development
Party
Rakhine Nationalities Development
Party
100 U Chan Lian Organizer Chin Progressive Party
101 Aung Myo Oo Secretary People Democracy Party
102 Sein Thein Vice-Chairman People Democracy Party
103 Moh Moh Thein Myint Ovserver Myanmar Egress
104 Saw Htin Lin Aung CEC Kayin Democratic Party
105 Saw Han Tar Member Kayin Democratic Party
106 Aung Gyi Joint Secretary
Democratic Party for Myanmar
New Society
107 U Win Myint Chairman Inn National Development Party
108 Daw Khin Ohn Kyu Member Inn National Development Party
109 U Mya Than Chairman Danu National Democracy Party
110 U Aung Zaw Myint Secretary (2) Danu National Democracy Party
111 Dixon Tun Lin CEC Kayin Peoples Party
112 Khun Kyaw Win Member Pao National Organization
113 U Aung Moe CEC
Democratic Party for Myanmar
New Society
114 Mahn Aung Pyi Soe Vice-Chairman Phlone-Sqaw Democratic Party
26

115 Saw Lin Htein S - 2 Phlone-Sqaw Democratic Party
116 Khin Su Myat Tun Co-Facilitator Myanmar Egress
27