The military coup in Myanmar was more than just the result of flaws in its nascent democracy. Successive governments — military and civil alike — swept societal, ethnic, and economic challenges and inequalities under the rug for decades, crippling the growth of civil society and democratic safeguards.

The Coup Chronicles
The military coup staged by Myanmar’s armed forces, officially referred to as Tatmadaw, on February 1, 2021 will reverse the country’s progress towards democracy — however nascent it may be. The takeover, which the military carried out on the same day the Parliament was set to begin its new session, signals the Tatmadaw’s intentions to cripple the country’s pro-democracy movement by removing any political checks on its own governmental power. In anticipation of the military’s seizure of power, the ousted National League for Democracy (NLD) government, led by Aung San Suu Kyi, drafted a statement in days prior, urging citizens to protest the military’s control. Myanmar’s elected government aspired to set constitutional reforms in motion during its second term, provoking the Tatmadaw’s declaration of a year-long state of emergency. The expansive military state controls over government now render this task impossible in the near term, further complicating Myanmar’s already uncertain future. Yet this common explanation simply scratches the surface of Myanmar’s democratic crisis and is insufficient to explain the dire situation in which the country’s pro-democracy movement finds itself. There are deep-rooted systemic challenges — stemming from the country’s unresolved history — that hinder Myanmar’s evolution into a full-fledged democracy and which require urgent attention.

This unresolved history is one that gives the appearance of Myanmar’s successful political and economic reformation, but this is far from the reality on the ground. Once hailed as a “successful” democratic transition process, where 2015 was seen as the apex of this move towards a full-fledged democracy, the transition underwent a complete 180. In 2017, the military unleashed a ruthless campaign against the Rohingya, after a militant group (Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army) carried out attacks on military outposts in northern Rakhine State, unleashing a humanitarian crisis that forced many Rohingya to flee their country to find safer havens abroad. The international community sees the ethnic cleansing carried out by the Tatmadaw as crimes against humanity — and even genocide. In fact, it is crucial important to note that the reforms that began in 2011 deliberately avoided addressing long-standing tensions between the NLD and the military — only to lead to a massive confrontation in 2020 and 2021.

While this turn in Myanmar’s democratic transition perplexes Myanmar watchers and the international community, natives and experts including historian Thant-Myint U hardly see this as a surprise. Despite the progressive reforms that took place in 2011, the historical ethnic and sectarian divisions persist to this day. The unfurling of multi-ethnic conflicts accompanied by the clash between quasi-democratic elements and the oppressive Tatmadaw proved unsuccessful in resolving the deeper issues that have haunted the country since its very inception. The overthrow of a democratic government and continued assault on ethnic minorities visible today is the result of socio-political and economic issues that remain overlooked. Progress in governance without resolving the fundamental issues in society is unsustainable. Myanmar’s past and present leaders are culpable for the unrest and violence playing out in the country in real time.

The coup d’etat effectively nullifies the decade-long (quasi) democratic transition aimed at extricating the country from the overwhelming control of its military, which fears losing its age-old grip on Myanmar’s political landscape. Unfortunately, the 2008 constitution that the military drafted allows for a coup, should there be a “threat to democracy”. The military employs this nationalist narrative to detain political leaders (including “Mother Suu” and the President of the NLD), pro-democracy activists, and chief ministers in the capital city of Naypyidaw and across the nation — a practice that apes its classic maneuvers to control the country. Similar to what they did during previous military demonstrations in 1962 and 1988, the Tatmadaw cut off all communication following the coup in an attempt to quash rising dissent. In doing so, the citizens of Myanmar — who only saw a few years of a quasi-democracy — saw history repeat itself. The ongoing large-scale protests against the coup are a testament to the long struggle in which the people of Myanmar strove to establish a true democracy.

It is a fight that the people of Myanmar continue to fight even in the face of the Tatmadaw’s tyrannical tactics to silence all opposition. On February 28th, the Tatmadaw began its most brutal crackdown on protestors who have taken to the streets despite the violence that is being unleashed by the authorities. Security forces killed 30 people on what has been called the bloodiest single day since the coup. That was only the beginning. Since then, the ruthless slaughter of protestors has continued unabated, with the most recent (reported) death toll marking 51 dead in Myanmar over the March 13-14 weekend. The imprisonment and murder of protestors asserting their right to freedom of peaceful assembly is a violation of a fundamental human right under international law.

Despite the extreme violence on the Tatmasaw’s part, the Civil Disobedience Movement remains in full swing across Myanmar.

The Spark that Lit the Fuse
The coup was the response of the military to the NLD’s attempt to remove it from politics as part of a larger conflict between the two over civil-military relations and contested civilian control of government. The long-standing conflict, while integral to the struggle for democracy, does not fully explain the political chaos transpiring in Myanmar. The Tatmadaw’s overthrow of the elected government reinforces the notion that it will not give up the unchecked advantages it enjoyed since Myanmar’s independence from British colonial rule. 

The military’s dispute over the NLD’s landslide victory in the November 2020 elections, which it vehemently claims were rigged, served as the primary cause for the military coup on the first day of February. Myanmar’s Union Election Commission’s (UEC) rejected the military’s claims of voting malpractices and fraud on the NLD’s part. The UEC also refused to conduct an investigation requested by the Tatmadaw in order to prove that the NLD allegedly won the 2020 elections. The Tatmadaw’s subsequent response reveals its reluctance to make way for constitutional reforms that will lead to the creation of an authentic democracy, thereby diminishing the military’s stranglehold over Myanmar. 

Years ago, when the NLD won its first landslide victory in 1990, the army refused to accept the outcome of the election, ultimately promising to call for new elections that would put power in the hands of the ‘rightful’ party. This handover and re-election process took 18 years. In light of this, the Tatmadaw’s plans to hold an election following the recently declared year-long emergency period are questionable. The transfer of power declared by the Tatmadaw — legislative, executive, and judicial — from acting president Myint Swe (the vice president and erstwhile leader of the Yangon military command) to Army Commander-in-Chief Min Aung Hlaing will prove detrimental to Myanmar’s overall development. Increasing power in the hands of an already-dominant Tatmadaw is a recipe for disaster. The declaration of this hand-over has reinstated the Tatmadaw’s draconian ways, thereby moving the country further away from anything that remotely resembles a democracy.

The Root of it All
The trials and tribulations testing Myanmar are products of fundamental issues at the very core of its system — one that resists reformation. According to the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs i.e. UN OCHA’s Humanitarian Needs Overview for Myanmar, an estimated 1 million people are in need of humanitarian assistance and face deep-rooted challenges in the country. These challenges are not limited to the effects of the coup, which only serves to exacerbate the already dire circumstances in which much of Myanmar’s population lives. Rather, the domestic challenges facing Myanmar’s populace include ongoing armed conflict, ethnic strife, natural disasters, a deteriorating economy, diminishing freedoms, and communal friction. The cruel combination of the Covid-19 pandemic and the Tatmadaw’s coup has hampered the growth of a society that is already vulnerable and in need of immediate aid and assistance. 

Moreover, the combination of factors that threaten the populace also make it more vulnerable to manipulation through fear and object oppression. Without a strong civil society or strong middle class, there remain few non-institutional checks to military rule by the Tatmadaw.

As things now stand, the systemic challenges that face Myanmar remain unaddressed. Unless these are fully dealt with, Myanmar will continue to face political instability. In the wake of the coup, the military jammed internet and mobile connections to prevent communication with the outside world. More recently, the Tatmadaw jammed mobile internet in the face of the real-time capturing of the armed forces central role in the loss of life of peaceful protestors to prevent further reporting. Military oppression has been central to Myanmar, stifling ethnic voices and hampering economic growth of the masses for decades. Now, the economy once again grinds to a stand-still as the Nationwide Civil Disobedience Movement refuses to give into what several civilians are calling the Tatmadaw’s “dictatorship”.

The deep misconceptions about the nature of the conflict and state of Myanmar emerge from a predominantly western rhetoric surrounding Myanmar’s democratic transition. Its reductionist nature projects the image of a slow but sure rise of liberal forces that will pave the way for the creation of a true democracy. This oversimplification paints a black-and-white picture of the conflict, and not coincidentally began to emerge as the West began grappling with the reality of “nation-building” in the Middle East. The one-sided nature of the claim that Myanmar’s democratic transition put the country on the right side of history, still prevalent today, underplays the role of racial and ethnic faultlines and economic deprivation inherent in the fabric of Myanmar. The timing of this portrayal is striking, for it surfaced at the time of unfolding of the Arab Spring. This coincided with this “righting wrongs” liberal discourse featuring Myanmar, meant to save face for the West’s champion of democracy and humanitarian intervention rationale. This rhetoric continues to downplay the deteriorating state of Myanmar and the ethnic and communal conflicts that remain a steadfast feature of Myanmar’s society. 

The systemic pre- and post-colonial challenges that Myanmar faces show the defective nature of this narrative — one that continues to propagate the period between 2011 and 2021 as one of democratic advancement. Myanmar’s historical circumstances demonstrate historian Thant Myint-U’s point that “A desperately poor and unequal country at war with itself won’t produce anything other than a façade of democracy.” The current situation in Myanmar proves just how deep these inequalities run. 

The UNICEF End of Year (2020) Humanitarian Situation Report reveals that this inequality continues to be a defining feature of the country, stretching back to its inception in 1948. The UN OCHA’s Global Humanitarian Overview 2021 recently published an evidence-based report showing that 1 million people in Myanmar will require safeguarding and humanitarian support from international organizations and the international community alike. This past year, the situation in the country worsened in the face of old and new challenges, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, reduced access to healthcare, growing conflict in the Rakhine, Chin, and Shan states, rampant displacement and persecution of ethnic minorities, and increasingly poor relations between Myanmar’s ethnic armed organizations and the military. Unless addressed, these will act as both a nuisance and a hindrance to Myanmar’s transformation into a country with inclusive democratic governance.

According to the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs’ (UN OCHA) Myanmar Humanitarian Response Plan 2021, the estimated (1 million) vulnerable individuals in Myanmar require either supplies or general aid. Of these, 278,874 people are in need of education; 782,864 are in need of food security; 818,658 are in need of access to healthcare; 183,203 are in need of nutrition; 985,629 are (reportedly) in need of protection; and 348,276 are in need of shelter. It bears acute underscoring that these figures only show officially reported data. There exists a large proportion of ‘invisible’ people in need on top of the reported cases; thousands of lives in Myanmar remain unaccounted and uncared for. With basic human rights already going unfulfilled, the situation in Myanmar is only compounded by the Tatmadaw’s unleashing of its ‘reign of terror’ on the inhabitants of Myanmar.

Since gaining independence from British colonial rule, Myanmar — like many of its regional neighbors — transformed into a diverse but divided country. It is against this canvas that the military endeavored to drive the country towards an independent future under their command. Yet the remnants of British colonialism persist to this day, as does the sharpening of ethnic differences. Once an attempted socialist approach to development failed, the military pushed for reforms to pull Myanmar out of poverty. Most subsequent development efforts adhered to a primarily superficial format that adversely affected the country’s trajectory.

The deeper issues of race, religion, economic disparity, and ethnic discrimination continue to plague Myanmar. The predominantly Burmese NLD — led by Myanmar’s beloved and the world’s dethroned peace icon Suu Kyi — ignored the deeper socio-political framework that needs to be rectified, resulting in gross human rights violations that Suu Kyi herself justified at the International Court of Justice (ICJ). There, she defended the Tatmadaw’s decision to commit atrocities against the Rohingya and refused to recognize the genocide that a “democratic” party allowed — and by extension, enabled — under its aegis. As recently as January 20, 2021, Myanmar submitted preliminary objections to the ICJ over the charges of genocide against the Rohingya Muslims brought forth by The Gambia.

Another event that occurred under the leadership of Suu Kyi’s “democracy-championing” NLD was the troublesome disenfranchisement of ethnic minorities, which affected an estimated 2 million of Myanmar’s 37 million eligible voters. The disenfranchisement stifled the voices of ethnic minorities in conflict-ridden areas (notably the Rakhine, Shan, and Kachin states) on the pretext of security concerns, followed by the closure of voting stations. The controversial nature of this action illustrates the cosmetic democracy that the popular political parties and military in Myanmar stand for. Thriving on systemic oppression, a discriminatory “democracy” will continue stripping the rights of the very people affected by the military’s violence and the NLD’s majoritarian rule — those whose voices matter most in the process of choosing a fair government. The very institutions meant to protect the people have taken it upon themselves to focus on holding onto power, instead of ensuring that all citizens are treated fairly. 

Into a Future Unknown but Familiar
The mixed international response to the coup, immediately after the Tatmadaw’s takeover, revealed the complacency of the international community. The initial lack of active support towards the establishment of a democratic structure proved troubling for the people of Myanmar, who had already faced decades of oppression orchestrated by the armed forces. Myanmar’s neighbours adopted a lukewarm approach, treading carefully so as to prevent diplomatic strife. While Indonesia and India expressed concern for Myanmar, other members of the ASEAN (Cambodia and Thailand) called the coup an “internal matter”. China’s peculiar response, which spoke of resolving differences and maintaining stability, is reflective of its eagerness to regain its foothold in Myanmar. China blocked the United Nations Security Council (UNSC)’s statement condemning the coup but called for the NLD leadership’s release. While states’ responses are motivated by their foreign policies, geopolitical agendas, and their need to appear politically correct, their silence and meek responses to the coup demonstrate a lackadaisical attitude when it comes to Myanmar’s fate.

In light of the brutality of the coup, verbal condemnation alone will not help Myanmar. Moreover, the initial statements — or lack thereof — issued by countries such as Australia, Iran, and the U.S. makes them accomplices in the deterioration of Myanmar’s quasi-democracy. The imposition of economic sanctions is routine practice when diplomatic crises such as these arise, and is likely to have little impact on the Tatmadaw, which is accustomed to dealing with international condemnation. Despite this, the U.S. and U.K. imposed sanctions on Myanmar’s military officials, and subsequently appear to have forgotten the issue.

With the military junta cracking down on peaceful protests across Myanmar and turning to extreme violence, the international community has begun to speak out against the military regime in Myanmar more strongly. Condemning the Tatmadaw’s acts (martial law, murders, imprisonment), countries as well as organizations such as the Human Rights Watch now closely monitor the situation, vehemently decrying anti-democratic practices employed by the Tatmadaw. It bears recording that the current protest in Myanmar is one of the biggest ones that the country has seen since 2007, raising the stakes for both Myanmar's democracy and the threat to human lives. UN Secretary-General António Gueterres condemned “the use of deadly violence in Myanmar,” emphasizing the importance of the right to peaceful assembly, calling for a “return to civilian rule”. With a rise in the level of violence by the Tatmadaw, the Secretary-General calls for the international community to work in collaboration as a whole and focus on both collective and bilateral solutions to uproot the military repression that has taken hold of Myanmar. Protecting the people of Myanmar must be the first priority of states across the world.

An international failure to respond to Myanmar’s dream of a functional democracy will have regional and global repercussions for democratic movements, international markets, and geopolitical stability unless intentional and holistic reconstruction of the country takes place. These implications include the worsening of already deteriorating democracies within and across Asia. The growing populism across the spectrum proves a dangerous trend within states in different parts of the world. 

Once reestablished and tempered by time, a whole-of-society pro-democracy bedrock will be crucial to contain Myanmar's power-hungry military. Putting a stop to the exploitation of the inhabitants of Myanmar — who already face numerous socio-political and economic challenges — in a prompt manner will be instrumental, especially as they face backlash for asserting their rights by protesting against a self-centered Tatmadaw.

Myanmar emerged in a predominantly militaristic atmosphere, which will make any attempt to build a democratic society that much more difficult — it has little history of democratic governance and culture to fall back on. This is not to say that it cannot be achieved. It will, however, require starting from the ground up by engaging, educating, and empowering the citizenry, and actively addressing and resolving the urgent public crises that successive governments swept under the carpet for decades. A democracy that is not accompanied by the creation of an inclusive environment, political structure, and civil society that enables it to flourish will remain a democracy in name only.

The lack of an institutional framework is the root cause stalling any real progress towards a sustainable democracy in Myanmar. The country’s history of military repression – where coups were carried out on three separate occasions – will ensure that an all-embracing participatory democracy remains but a far-fetched dream without steadfast institutional checks to ensure civilian control of government. Comprehensive institutional reforms, checks and balances, and an active civil society must form the basis of a durable and participatory political structure. This, in turn, will allow Myanmar to establish an authentic democracy. Upholding the rights and dignity of all citizens — irrespective of their faith, ethnicity, race, migratory history, or national identity — is not an impossible feat, but it requires tackling the systemic challenges at the root of the ongoing political disorder.

Successful democratic reformation doesn’t take place overnight. Painstaking efforts carried out patiently, targeting each complex (economic, political, ethnic, religious) issue with precision, will be the way forward. There is an urgent need for Myanmar to address the underlying challenges and build a strong base before a resilient democratic superstructure can be built upon it. Establishing a sustainable democracy and an equitable society in a country that continues to persevere through a myriad of challenges is possible. Democratic success will be vital both at home and abroad, as this humanitarian crisis is not Myanmar’s to shoulder alone. Much is at stake for the international community; joint cooperation is the best course of action. A dynamic partnership between civil society, national political forces, state actors, and multilateral organizations will determine how Myanmar’s democratic experiment unfolds. The fearlessness of the people of Myanmar and their perseverance in challenging a ruthless Tatmadaw is central to establish the power of the people and create a flourishing democracy, both at home and abroad.

Authors:

Aishwarya Verma

Research Assistant
South Asia Programme

LinkedIn | Twitter

Edited by: Cameron Vaské

All views expressed in this article are solely those of the author, and do not represent the views of The International Scholar or any other organization.

Photo Credits:

• By Ninjastrikers - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=99691100