To fully comprehend Myanmar’s internal crisis, it is imperative to grasp the way seven decades of Myanmar politics have shaped the military’s motivation behind staging the coup.
Key Takeaways:
-
The Myanmar military’s authoritarian and conservative nature is shaped by decades of encounters with insurgencies, corruption, popular movements, and foreign cultural encroachments.
-
These encounters led to the military perceiving itself as the only nonpartisan institution capable of preventing the country from disunifying and ensuring the purity of the Bamar majority and affiliated culture.
-
To understand the dynamics behind the post-coup Myanmar civil war, it is important to have a nuanced understanding of how the military has perceived the popular resistance to its rule.
On February 1st, 2021, the Myanmar military staged a coup, citing allegations of widespread voting fraud in the previous year’s general election as justification. The military argued that the ruling National League for Democracy (NLD) had refused to adequately investigate these claims, prompting it to take direct action. Additionally, tensions between the government and the military had been growing under the NLD’s rule, particularly on national unity and preserving religious and ethnic purity. Min Aung Hlaing, the military leader, repeatedly emphasized that national unity was under threat, which he claimed necessitated the military’s intervention.
This was not the first instance of the military stepping in to prevent what it perceived as the potential disintegration of the country. In 1962, General Ne Win led a coup d’état, citing the secessionist tendencies of ethnic minorities as the primary reason. Similarly, in 1990, the military refused to honor the results of a general election because it feared that the rise of democracy icon Aung San Suu Kyi and her NLD would undermine national unity and the purity of the Burman majority and its associated religious values. While the apparent breakdown of the power-sharing arrangement between the military and the NLD that existed between 2016 and 2021 might seem to be the main driver behind the most recent coup, more complex dynamics are at play, which have also fueled the eruption of armed conflicts following the military takeover.
A history of the military’s struggle for control
Since gaining independence in 1948, the military has viewed itself as the only non-partisan institution capable of preventing the country’s disintegration, a belief closely intertwined with its deep-seated distrust of party politics. This perception was forged during its encounters with ethnic and communist insurgencies that began shortly after independence. As the military struggled to suppress widespread armed rebellions, it came to believe that divisions and feuds among politicians were detrimental to the war effort and, ultimately, to national unity, further reinforcing its self-image as the nation’s savior. Between 1948 and 1962, the country was largely governed by the Anti-Fascist and People’s Freedom League (AFPFL), a left-leaning coalition initially headed by Aung San, Suu Kyi’s father. Within a decade of independence, the AFPFL fractured into two competing political parties—the Union Party, originally known as the “Clean AFPFL”, and the Stable AFPFL—with members consolidating power through patron-client networks and militias. This deepened the military’s conviction that party politics posed a threat to national unity and needed to be eliminated.
The civilian government’s attempts to placate ethnic minorities by initiating discussions on greater autonomy finally provoked the military to act, leading to the 1962 coup. General Ne Win established the Revolutionary Council and introduced a centralized, socialist economic and political system, which he believed would ensure the nation’s unity. Freedoms of expression and assembly, seen as threats to national unity, were curtailed, and dissent was harshly repressed. The military continued its battle against insurgents, further reinforcing its self-perception as the sole defender of national unity and entrenching its belief that national unity must be preserved at all costs. One of the most significant laws passed during this period was the 1982 Citizenship Act, which made it difficult for religious and ethnic minorities, especially the Rohingya, who are mostly Muslims, to obtain citizenship.
Initially, the military did not overtly promote Buddhism and even distanced itself from the religion by withdrawing formal support for monks, aiming to maintain a nonpartisan image. However, Buddhist monks held significant influence in Burmese society, and by the late 1970s, the military began to engage more with Buddhist matters. Ne Win cultivated his image as a defender of Buddhism by sponsoring religious examinations for monks, a practice inspired by similar patronage given by Burmese kings.
Ne Win’s government was eventually overthrown by a popular uprising in 1988, and a new military junta took power. This junta dismantled the socialist policies of the previous regime and began overtly supporting Buddhism. The end of the Cold War, combined with the global spread of Western popular culture and the advent of more advanced communication systems, led to an influx of Western films, music, and magazines into Myanmar, bringing new cultural influences. Young people eagerly embraced these influences, prompting the military government to adopt measures to preserve Burmese culture, which it perceived as being threatened by Western cultural imports. Schools required students to wear traditional clothing and to engage in religious prayers, which marginalized non-Buddhists, including Christians, Muslims, and Hindus.
During this period, the military initiated a top-down reform process to transition to a democratic political system. A constitutional referendum and a general election were promptly held, leading to a quasi-civilian government taking office in 2011. However, alongside these political developments, Buddhist extremism and xenophobic sentiments grew, resulting in violence and riots against religious minorities, particularly Muslims. These conflicts were driven by the belief that Buddhism was under threat from other religions and that it was necessary to protect it at all costs. There were allegations that the police, under military control, intentionally arrived late to scenes of violence or deliberately refrained from intervening. The military was closely aligned with monks accused of spreading hate speech against religious minorities. For example, Ashin Wirathu, a monk known for his inflammatory rhetoric against Muslims, was arrested in 2019 for criticizing the NLD government but was promptly released after the military took power in 2021 and later honored by the junta.
Observers have identified the military’s desire to forcibly assimilate ethnic minorities and deny them autonomy as a key factor behind Myanmar’s prolonged civil war. Despite this, the military persisted in its approach, and even during ceasefire negotiations, it demanded the unconditional surrender of the rebel groups while these groups sought a political settlement. The military also refused to negotiate with armed groups it deems geopolitically insignificant, leading to frustration among some ethnic minorities. This denial of self-determination has exacerbated the conflict, with more groups opting for armed rebellion as the only viable path to achieving political concessions.
In the 2015 election, Aung San Suu Kyi’s NLD won a landslide victory, and she became the government’s de facto leader. However, the military and the police remained outside her control, and tensions continued to simmer within the power-sharing arrangement. During this time, the NLD attempted to amend the Constitution to limit the military’s power and place it under civilian oversight. The military perceived these attempts as threats to national unity, and its leaders repeatedly warned that national unity was at risk. A few days before the 2021 coup, a military spokesperson stated at a press conference that the military was responsible for preserving the “Three Supreme Responsibilities,” which included upholding national unity. Meanwhile, pro-military and nationalist groups held a series of demonstrations that resulted in violence against bystanders and journalists.
Post-coup developments
Following the 2021 coup, nationwide protests erupted against the military takeover. What began as a movement demanding the restoration of the pre-coup status quo quickly evolved to include more radical demands, such as the dissolution of military authoritarianism, greater autonomy for ethnic minorities, and equal opportunities for all. During these protests, traditional norms and values, including Buddhism, came to be seen as reactionary, patriarchal, and indirectly oppressive, particularly toward women and the LGBTQ+ community. Creative performances were staged during protests and online to challenge these traditional norms and values, resisting the hegemonic patriarchal social order established by the military. Military chief Min Aung Hlaing has criticized “those wearing indecent clothes [as] contrary to Myanmar culture,” arguing that their actions were harmful to Myanmar traditions and calling for firm legal action against them. This tug-of-war between the military, which sees itself as the guardian of tradition, and the resistance movement, which seeks to replace the traditional culture with more liberal norms, was most evident during the early days of the coup.
Moreover, civil society marches advocating for ethnic minority rights were organized post-coup and often joined by people from the majority Bamar ethnic group, in a display of solidarity between all ethnicities. These demonstrators primarily demanded an end to discrimination based on ethnicity, greater autonomy for ethnic minorities, and recognition of their right to secede from the union. The military perceived these demands as a direct threat to its core mission of preserving the nation’s unity, and unsurprisingly, it responded with a violent crackdown on the protesters. As the military refused to back down and continued to suppress dissent violently, young people fled to areas controlled by ethnic rebel groups, received military training, and took up arms against junta forces. Despite the population’s expressed desire for a more liberalized political and social environment and a decentralized, federal state, the military has clung to the status quo, using force to maintain its grip on power and prosecuting dissenters with impunity. In this light, the increasing violence in Myanmar can be seen as a result of the clash between the more liberal demands of the resistance movement and the military’s unwillingness to accommodate those demands.
Two major, intertwined factors drive Myanmar’s current political crisis. On the one hand, ethnic minority armies and resistance groups seek to build a federal state that provides autonomy to marginalized ethnic groups based on liberal and democratic principles. On the other hand, the military is determined to preserve a political order centered on the majority Bamar ethnic group and Buddhist religious and social norms, characterized by illiberalism, fundamentalism, and xenophobia. The ongoing crisis can be understood as a result of both sides’ unwillingness to compromise on their political demands. The military’s institutional history also plays a role in perpetuating the crisis. According to Mary Callahan, the military’s perception of the population as enemies has roots in the British annexation of Burma in 1885. She also observed that Myanmar’s governing generals lack experience in compromise or subtle political maneuvering and tend to rely on force and coercion to eliminate opposition.
The resistance movement in Myanmar is currently demanding that the military relinquish its self-assigned “supreme responsibilities,” which include safeguarding the union and upholding the perceived purity of the Burman race and Buddhism. The resistance advocates for forming a federal state and implementing more liberal reforms, changes that the military believes would undermine its core duties. On the other hand, the revolutionaries are convinced that halting their resistance would condemn the country to perpetual authoritarian rule. This belief fuels their revolutionary fervor, which, like that of the military, is deeply rooted in decades of Myanmar’s radical traditions, where violent struggle is often prioritized over other forms of resistance.
Conclusion: Need for a complex understanding of the Myanmar conflict
The military’s preoccupation with national unity, traditional culture, and Buddhism has been shaped by its long history of confronting insurgencies, perception of civilian politicians as incompetent, and fear of Western cultural influence. In contrast, the resistance forces aim to dismantle the military’s hegemonic position and its associated priorities of national unity and traditional values.
According to some analysts, this isn’t always recognized by commentators. David Brenner has criticized external observers, particularly those from the West, for perceiving the ongoing Myanmar conflict through an overly simplistic lens of “authoritarianism vs. democracy.” He argues that such a binary view overlooks the nuanced dynamics driving the ongoing crisis and urges scholars, academics, and observers to consider the complex factors that sustain the civil war. While it is true that Myanmar’s revolutionaries have used the language of human rights and democracy to frame their struggle, Maaike Matelski suggests that this rhetoric is partly employed to garner support from Western governments and organizations. G.R. Aung and Stephen Campbell have also highlighted how “imperial powers formed a post-Cold War, liberal, imperial consensus,” using civil society as a vehicle for liberalization, and how framing Myanmar’s struggle in liberal terms can attract financial and moral backing from the West.
Therefore, it is crucial to recognize that Myanmar’s revolutionaries may have a different understanding of democracy than the Western concept. A nuanced grasp of Myanmar’s political history is essential for comprehending what democracy means in the context of the current revolutionary movement.
