Given their fondness for astrology, it’s certainly possible Burma’s generals consulted with their astrologers for advice on how to draft the 2008 Constitution and when to hold the elections. However, the reading of tea leaves and aligning of planets and birth dates aren’t the only means of predicting the future. Constitutional lawyers and political scientists have devised more reliable, less supernatural methods that consider a variety of design and structural factors in order to predict the health and potential longevity of new constitutions.

In the book “The Endurance of National Constitutions,” political scientists Zachary Elkins, Tom Ginsburg, and James Melton describe the recipe for success. They estimated that on average constitutions have a lifespan of only 19 years.

If the public and special interest groups participate in drafting a constitution and vote for it in a referendum, they are more likely to uphold and defend it during times of crisis. Furthermore, detailing specific procedures and rights, such as the right to education, demonstrates a constitution’s relevance for everybody in society and prevents arguments over the meaning of the text. Finally, relatively flexible amendment procedures allow the government to adapt the constitution to changing circumstances. As history has witnessed, constitutions that include all of these features can last more than 200 years, compared to less than a decade for constitutions that do not follow the formula.

Both of Burma’s past constitutions had a lifespan of around 14 years—shorter than average. While Burma’s 1947 Constitution established a parliamentary democracy, it failed to resolve the widespread political factionalism and ethnic insurgencies of the early 1960s. Gen Ne Win’s coup d’état simply delivered the final deathblow. In 1974, Ne Win promulgated a new constitution, which entrenched the Burma Socialist Programme Party in power. In the aftermath of the 1988 protests, the military suspended the constitution indefinitely.

By contrast, the recent National Convention spent 17 years writing the 2008 Constitution—the longest constitutional drafting process in history. However, despite what Snr-Gen Than Shwe’s astrologers may have prophesied, Burma’s new constitution appears destined for a relatively short lifespan.

The Burmese public, largely excluded from the constitutional drafting process, is already skeptical of the new constitution’s intent and effectiveness in resolving the nation’s challenges. The National Convention’s proceedings were shrouded in secrecy and delegates who opposed the military’s vision were reportedly expelled or silenced. The public did not see the final draft until weeks before the referendum, much less have a chance to comment on it.

The Burmese people were further disillusioned by the May 2008 referendum, when the government claimed that 98 percent of the population turned out and 92 percent voted in favor—a startling and unlikely result so soon after Cyclone Nargis devastated the Irrawaddy Delta and killed more than 138,000 people. After this incredulous and tumultuous process, few Burmese outside the military will probably ever feel invested in the 2008 Constitution.

The Constitution does include more detail and cover a wider scope of topics than average. The final English-language draft runs at 40,000 words, whereas most constitutions average around 14,000 words. Some topics, particularly state of emergency procedures, receive considerable attention. However, the sections about executive and legislative officials are unnecessarily repetitive, focusing excessively on the minutiae of qualifications and appointment procedures. More importantly, the Constitution barely explains the fundamental rights of Burmese citizens. It is not clear, for example, whether it prohibits gender discrimination in the tatmadaw (armed services). Even after 17 years of drafting, the final text leaves many crucial issues unresolved.

Finally, as many Burma watchers have already noted, the Constitution imposes high barriers to amendment. Elkins, Ginsburg and Melton contend that ideally constitutions should permit amendments passed by around two-thirds of the legislature and signed by the head of state, citing India as an example.

However, Burma’s Constitution requires more than 75 percent of the Hluttaw (parliament) to vote in favor of an amendment. Because military members will occupy 25 percent of the seats, this gives the tatmadaw an effective veto over amendments.

In addition, certain provisions, including the chapter on Defense Services, can only be amended if approved by more than half of all eligible voters in a referendum. This will end up simply making the Constitution less adaptable to changing social and political conditions.

No matter how long Burma’s new Constitution lasts, it will fundamentally alter Burmese politics. Nonetheless, true to the Buddhist concept of impermanence, the 2008 Constitution will not last forever.

While it contains some details about government officials, the Constitution, as written, remains silent on many important issues that face the country. Moreover, because the amendment procedures are so cumbersome, it is likely that any future democratic Burmese government would simply abandon this Constitution rather than struggle to amend it.

Few Burmese are strongly attachment to the Constitution and many would cheer its downfall. Based on these predictable shortcomings, it’s possible—highly likely even—that Burma will have to hold another constitutional convention within a generation.

Arnold Corso (a pseudonym) is a legal expert who has worked with human rights organizations in Southeast Asia.