Democracy in Myanmar

Myanmar, which has embarked itself on the slow transition from a military dictatorship to a democracy, has descended back into its military regime. It never reached a level of a full-fledged democracy, being labelled by Freedom House as “not free” due to its numerous human rights abuses, namely against the Rohingya ethnic group, and its persistent military involvement in the government. The military still controlled the vice presidency and 25% of the seats in parliament, though this government structure was still more democratic than the preceding repressive military occupation. This transition to democracy has come to an abrupt halt due to a military coup, which emerged as a military refusal of the outcome of Myanmar’s 2020 democratic election of Aung San Suu Kyi from The National League for Democracy. Suu Kyi and dozens of other political figures have been detained by the military, effectively ousting the democratically elected government.

A series of protests have since erupted in cities and towns throughout the country, especially in the largest city, Yangon. Despite the protests being generally peaceful, armed police officers heavily monitor the gatherings and have shot their firearms into crowds. To further repress citizens’ communication and actions, the military junta has implemented a near-total shutdown of the internet, blocking out media coverage and observation by various rights groups.

The international community has commenced its conversations regarding the coup, and there have been significant discrepancies in the standpoints. China and Russia are not necessarily vocally for the military, though they are not quite against it either. The two countries blocked the British condemnation of the coup and a spokesperson for the UN Chinese mission has advised against anti-military interference. Although somewhat discouraging that two major world powers have displayed resistance to protecting Myanmar’s civilians’ rights, it is somewhat expected. Both China and Russia have highly centralized and corrupt authoritarian governments and have not historically (or currently, in the case of China) exhibited significant humanitarian concern.

American foreign policy presents some divergence. Joe Biden gave his first foreign policy speech on February 4, addressing the situation in Myanmar and highlighting that his presidency and approach will prioritize human rights and democracy, two cornerstones of America. But the coup presents a clash in these ideals. Of course, it has overthrown a democracy, which is in clear opposition of American democratic ideals. But the elected democratic leader’s political history is stained by human rights abuses. Suu Kyi and The National League for Democracy endorsed the military’s rampant rape, murder, and expulsion of the Rohingya people. The exact human rights terminology of the Rohingya crisis is a bit ambiguous, with some governments and organizations deeming it a genocide, and most others calling it “ethnic cleansing.” Regardless, the elected democratic leader and her party conflict with international humanitarian values, especially those of the U.S.. This also further highlights the often overlooked notion that democracy and human rights are not always completely aligned, leaving the Biden administration and other democratic governments to decide between the restoration of democracy and civilian rights or the protection of human rights.

Suu Kyi and other government officials may face charges of genocide following further investigation, but the Rohingya crisis is a product of deeper rooted Islamophobia, given that Myanmar is primarily Buddhist and the Rohingya are a Muslim ethnic group. Suu Kyi has proved to be completely incompetent and dismal in the protection of human rights, but her stance is a reflection of the general Burmese sentiment. Many of Myanmar’s citizens remained supportive of the human rights abuses so it is extremely likely that Suu Kyi resisted condemning the military in order to represent Burmese interests and to maintain the fragile balance between the military and civilians. Myanmar as a country and culture is not progressive enough to embrace the concept of universal human rights so the government will almost inevitably reflect such values, or lack thereof. The restoration of the democratic government under Suu Kyi would not likely end the persecution and massacre of the Rohingya people, but it would not necessarily exacerbate it either. The military regime of Min Aung Hlaing, who is under U.S. sanctions for his human rights abuses against Rohingya Muslims, will continue to violate humanitarian law as well as the rights of Myanmar’s citizens. With this being said, however, international support for Suu Kyi or The National League for Democracy must be predicated on support for democracy as a whole, not specific and personal support of Suu Kyi herself.

In order for international bodies to effectively intervene in both the military coup and the Rohingya crisis, there must also be a full reformation of government. A gradual, decade-long transition from a suffocating military regime (in which civilians had close to no rights) to a pseudo-democracy (in which it was hoped that citizens would have some rights) was insufficient. It was the least controversial, the safest, and the most doable method, but by granting the military even partial control of the government, Myanmar ran the high risk of backsliding into a state of military occupation, which it did.

The U.S. has little to no vested interest in Myanmar. It is a small country with few economic or political connections to the U.S. However, they are tied together by one key concept - democracy. The U.S., despite the flawed nature of its democracy, serves as a democratic figurehead on a global scale. It is a standard of democratic government for countries like Myanmar, which had aspired for a transformation of its leadership. But in a world in which a defective democracy serves as a model, we can observe echoes of its faults internationally, particularly in Myanmar. After the election, the military made baseless accusations of election fraud as a preemptive justification for the coup, reminiscent of the Trump administration and Trump supporter’s cries of voter fraud following Biden’s victory. Further, the Rohingya crisis was driven and inflamed by intensive anti-Muslim rhetoric that was nearly identical to that of post-9/11 American policy-makers. Although Myanmar’s situations are more extreme than the U.S.’s, America cannot completely detach itself from the events.

Myanmar may even further expose the flaws in America’s democracy. Given the fallout of the 2020 American election, there are notable comparisons between the two countries’ handlings of democracy. Although Biden's victory, fortunately, did not spur a military coup, disappointed Americans conducted a siege on the Capitol. Both Americans and the Myanmar military felt as though the democracy did not work in their favor and sought to compromise its institutions through violence and force. The U.S. is a considerably more developed democratic system than Myanmar, but Americans still must recognize that this does not guarantee a secure or pristine democracy. Democracy must be honorably and adequately upheld by all its citizens, institutions, and representatives for it to remain sustainable.