Anticipating the outcomes of the July 31 NDSC meeting and beyond
278
Phyo Lin Aung (NP News)
The National Defense and Security Council (NDSC) meeting will hold on July 31. This meeting will be different from previous six-monthly meetings. It is worth mentioning because the NDSC Chairman Senior General Min Aung Hlaing has pledged to hold elections between the last week of December 2025 and the third week of January 2026. Along with the July 31 NDSC meeting, many political scenarios are expected to appear.
The election is about to be held and the constitution needs to be considered. Once the Commander-in-Chief of the Defence Services Senior General Min Aung Hlaing has completed his duties and reported to the President, he will have to coordinate with the NDSC and announce the annulment of the ordinance transferring the sovereign power to the Commander-in-Chief of the Defence Services. Then, the question arises whether the State Administration Council (SAC), which was formed during the emergency period, will continue to exist or be dissolved. In addition, if the SAC is dissolved, it is necessary to consider which organization will lead to hold the election.
The State Administration Council (SAC), is a state executive body that was created through the NDSC during the political crisis of 2021. The NDSC, held on February 1, 2021, vested all three branches of power in the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, Senior General Min Aung Hlaing. The Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, who is authorized to exercise all three branches of power under Sections 417 and 418 (a) of the Constitution, formed the SAC using Article 419. He assumed the position of Chairman of the SAC. Simply put, the NDSC vested power in the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, who then exercises separate power through an organization called the SAC. In other words, the SAC came into being only because of the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, and if the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces wishes to dissolve it, it will end. In that case, the promise of SAC Chairman Senior General Min Aung Hlaing, who is also the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, to hold elections can be seen as an indirect announcement that the organization called SAC will soon be abolished.
Furthermore, if the election is mandatory, Section 426 should be used. If this section is used, the Commander-in-Chief of the Defence Services will no longer have the right to exercise all three branches of state power. Once the Commander-in-Chief of the Defence Services returns the three branches of state power entrusted to him to the NDSC, the SAC that he formed will also be considered to have automatically dissolved. Therefore, the dissolution of the SAC can be seen and heard on the night of July 31 or the morning of August 1. However, the loopholes in the constitution should not be forgotten.
There are certain circumstances where a SAC may not be dissolved. The Council, formed by the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, can continue to exist even after the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces has handed over all three branches of power, by decision of the NDSC. The NDSC must hold elections within six months of the handover of power under Section 426, and then under Section 429. The exercise of power is also governed by Section 427. Even if Hluttaws are formed through elections, the NDSC has the right to exercise state power until a new President is elected under Section 427 (b), and it has the right to delegate executive and judicial powers from the three branches of power to appropriate individuals and organizations. However, leaving the NDSC in place without abolishing it offers limited options for consideration, as it could lead to undesirable complications.
If the SAC is to be dissolved, the NDSC will have to decide which organization will conduct the elections. As the NDSC, the election must be held within the six-month period from August 1, 2025, to January 31, 2026. Although the constitution allows the NDSC to lead and govern, it is certain that a system of delegated administration will still be necessary for ministries and state institutions.
So, the 2008 Constitution has provided guidance. Sections 427(a) and (b) serve as the key provisions. The NDSC must exercise legislative power directly but may delegate executive and judicial powers to appropriate individuals or institutions. Sections 428, 430, and 431 also form the roadmap for governance in the year following the dissolution of the SAC. This raises the question: will a new government be formed to both hold elections and manage the interim administration?
There is an administrative organization here that we might not have noticed. It is the caretaker government that the SAC announced in its gazette on August 1, 2021. There used to be a group called the Management Committee under the SAC, and in a speech on August 1, 2021, Senior General Min Aung Hlaing, chairman of the SAC, announced that this committee would be transformed into a caretaker government. The current administration is the caretaker government, and above it is the SAC.
Above the SAC is the Commander-in-Chief of the Defence Services, who formed it. Above the Commander-in-Chief of the Defence Services, according to the 2008 Constitution, is the President and the NDSC. In a complex political crisis where there is no real President elected by the people through a general election, the NDSC is the highest authority. Therefore, the NDSC is the final decision-maker. If the NDSC confirms that the caretaker government will continue, the current Prime Minister and all members of the Union Cabinet will remain in place. In that case, it would be difficult to consider the need for other governing body or a transitional government to hold elections.
However, the caretaker government's prime minister has the option to change his cabinet as needed. The idea that simply reshuffling the current group and bringing in a few international figures to gain international recognition reflects a very shallow level of political thinking. Moreover, attempting to mislead the public and the international community by making unnecessary changes to otherwise stable administrative mechanisms is disingenuous. Therefore, there is no need for an interim government, an electoral fairness government, or any other form of government under any title. –