Why Is Myanmar So Authoritarian?
It’s difficult to make any generalised statements about Southeast Asia. There are (depending on how you frame your definition of “Southeast Asia”) between 6 and 12 countries with over 350 recognised ethnic groups across the Peninsula alone, totaling a population of nearly 700 million people speaking an estimated 1200 different languages region-wide. Politically, the situation is no less diverse, as Thailand functions as a constitutional monarchy where the king is revered as an almost sacred figure, whilst neighbouring Vietnam acts as a single-party socialist state. One country in particular, however, has made headlines fairly consistently over the past few years due to the actions of its military-led regime (or junta), and has led people to ask:
Why is Myanmar so authoritarian?
General Aung San stands outside of 10 Downing Street in 1947, immediately after negotiating Burmese independence. Credit: Encyclopedia Britannica
The origin of the answer is found in the post-colonial era which, for Myanmar (or Burma, as it was then known) secured independence from the British in 1948. The newly established democracy only lasted for 10 years, however, before handing excessive amounts of power to the military (or Tatmadaw) in order to help suppress ethnic rebellions and deal with the sociopolitical fallout of economic decline. A decade later, a coup d’etat was staged by General Ne Win in 1962, establishing a new constitution that emphasised isolationist policy and a socialist economic program. Such a disastrous handling of the economy later led to mass protests in 1988. As the protests grew, however, Aung San Suu Kyi had established herself as a leader, keeping up the pace of the demonstrations’ momentum for two years - at which point, Ne Win had resigned (though was still in a position of great power), and the first multiparty elections were held. In these elections, Suu Kyi’s newly formed National League for Democracy (NLD) party won an overwhelming number of seats in the national Parliament. The military, however, maintained an overwhelming amount of power in Myanmar despite allowing elections to take place.
The first half of the 2010’s can be somewhat viewed as a “golden age” for democratic progress in Myanmar. Amnesty for more than 200 political prisoners was established in 2011, a ceasefire with ethnic rebels was signed and sanctions were eased in 2012, and more civil and economic freedoms were allowed in 2013. But the latter half of the decade witnessed something of a return to autocracy - violent suppression of ethnic minorities in the Kokang and Rakhine provinces (among others) took place, with Suu Kyi defending Myanmar against charges of genocide in The Hague in 2020. In early 2021, a refusal by opposition leaders to recognise the NLD’s valid re-election led to a failure for either group to establish a functional government - which the military resolved by declaring a state of emergency and seizing control. Violent protests broke out, but the country remains under full military rule to this day.
Min Aung Hlaing serves as Myanmar’s de facto leader following the 2021 coup. Credit: Ye Aung Thu, via Bloomberg
Ultimately, Myanmar remains authoritarian due to ethnic divisions and a legacy of the Tatmadaw’s over-involvement in political affairs. With respect to ethnic divisions, scholars have debated ideas such as whether colonial legacies have created friction between these groups, or whether economic inequality across groups and geography leads to public resentment. However, one thing is for certain: tension certainly exists due to the fact that Myanmar’s government does not recognise the Rohingya at all, refusing them citizenship and excluding them from censuses, instead seeing them as illegal immigrants from Bangladesh. Such tensions create conflict, which the government likely sees as possible to pre-emptively crush by maintaining an autocratic regime.
At this time, it’s not clear what can be done to promote democracy in Myanmar. The recent coup, combined with the effects of the pandemic, have left Myanmar’s economy in a state of crisis, and food insecurity is growing - leading to the belief that such violence as witnessed thus far will only grow more drastic. Foreign ministers in the West (as well as South Korea) have accused the Tatmadaw of bearing responsibility for the series of crises currently rocking Myanmar, stating that it has “gravely undermined peace and stability in Myanmar and the region”. But with the military stating that its state of emergency will be extended to 2023, it seems that authoritarianism in the country is, once again, here to stay.
TAI Score: Degree 3. Human security and democratic values remain considerably threatened by civil war in Myanmar. This is causing a complete ostracisation of the country from international meetings, and causing a continued refugee crisis in neighbouring countries. While the full impact outside of Myanmar’s immediate area remains moderate at most, threat assessors should ensure that issues surrounding transnational crime are not taking place in business practices.
