“Making big problems small and small problems disappear”: Experiences of local justice in Myanmar
- 1. “Making big problems small and small problems disappear”: Experiences of local justice in Myanmar Presentation by Lisa Denney (ODI) and Khin Thet San (Saferworld) British Council, Yangon Thursday, 1 September 2016
- 2. Research Methods: 3 Questions 1. What disputes do people commonly face? 2. How do people go about resolving them? 3. How fair are the outcomes achieved through available justice mechanisms?
- 3. Research methods: - Mon State research (2 weeks) - Yangon research (2 weeks) - Visited 24 Ward/Village Tracts: - FGDs with men and women - KIIs with W/VTAs, 10/100HH, elders, CBOs, political party reps, religious leaders, ethnic/religious minorities, sex workers, MSM, people with experience of dispute - Over 600 respondents in total
- 4. Common disputes/injustices Most common response is that there are no disputes/injustices And when we did get to the existence of real disputes or injustices, these were rarely understood as such: Eg: Domestic violence – not seen as a crime but effect of alcoholism Eg: Unable to get ID card – not seen as discrimination but administrative problem Injustice/disputes largely seen as ‘karma’ and one’s lot in life to be endured Only land grabbing spoken of as clear injustice; rape of minors and murder clearly viewed as crimes
- 5. Land disputes - Land grabbing - Illegal sale of land - Squatters and unregistered migrants - Inheritance - Neighbour disputes
- 6. Debt and loan disputes - Poor access to credit (microfinance documentation requirements) - Informal loans with interest rates from 25-60% - Usually no contract: both lender and borrower unprotected - Can lead to further loans, pawning house, fleeing community, illegal gambling and sex work - Lenders also not protected
- 7. Discrimination - The poor - Women - Religious minorities - Ethnic minorities - Migrant workers - Men who have sex with men (MSM) - Sex workers ISSUE OF LEGAL IDENTITY: ‘I just remove the idea of wanting that document from my head.’
- 8. Violence against women and children - Domestic violence (and alcoholism) - Abandonment - Rape of minors - Underage marriage - Human trafficking
- 9. Labour disputes - Factory labourers mostly women - Poor conditions: low pay, long hours, - Unions legally operating since 2012 but poor understanding of their role
- 10. Drugs - Mostly in Mon - General agreement that only users ever get arrested; even police are afraid of dealers - Women feel this contributes to other form of insecurity - Poor ‘rehabilitation’ services for addicts
- 11. Public Insecurity - Theft and robbery - Murder - Youth Fighting - Motorcycle accidents - Violations by the security sector
- 12. How do people resolve disputes? - Range of resolution mechanisms that vary depending on one’s identity, location and the nature of the dispute - By far the most common response is not to report: Tendency to prioritise peace and social harmony over justice. - Where people do report, preference is for resolving disputes at the lowest level possible.
- 13. How do people resolve disputes? - What people described as the process for resolving disputes was consistent across all communities:
- 15. Lack of justice chains for discriminated groups - Virtually no justice pathways for those who experience discrimination - Discriminated groups less likely to report disputes through justice chains, believing they would lose or inflame community tensions - People rarely talk of not being able to do things as issue of discrimination - Sex workers and MSM dared not report any crimes – including rape – because the law criminalises, rather than protects them
- 16. How do people decide where to report? - Strength of custom and the agreed process: can trump other considerations - Nature of dispute - Shared identity/trust - Perceived effectiveness - Timeliness - Cost - Linguistic accessibility - Understanding of process - Fairness only really considered by discriminated groups – and generally pushes them out of the justice system
- 17. What impedes fair/non-discriminatory outcomes? - Weak understanding of justice as well as a preference for resolving cases at the lowest level - Lack of clarity on roles, jurisdiction and legal decision making, leading to arbitrary judicial outcomes - Corruption: justice can be bought
- 18. What can be done? What role can A2J play? - Lots of areas calling out for justice assistance but dangers of rushing in - Problems we have are ones of: - Limited understanding of justice, rights, the law and legal process - Aversion to ‘disrupting the peace’ - Lack of trust in justice providers - Corruption - Poorly trained (and paid) lowest levels of justice (W/VTAs, police) - Continued tension between administration and justice functions - Discrimination engrained in justice sector, as in wider society - Can A2J solve these problems? How?