Democratisation of Myanmar

Nehginpao Kipgen

• Publisher: Routledge India
• Year: 2021
• ISBN:
  9781000462357
• Edition: 2
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Asian Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

On February 1, 2021, Myanmar's military coup abruptly ended a decade of a civilian-military hybrid regime – a massive setback for the democratisation process. Citizens from all walks of life took to the streets and protests erupted over the following weeks, and Myanmar became the centre of global attention. This book brings up to date how the story of Myanmar's experiment with democracy unravelled over the last few years.

This second edition:

? Traces the political transition of Myanmar from a military rule of nearly five decades to a short-lived democratic experiment;

? Outlines the factors that contributed to this transition and the circumstances in which it took place;

? Shows how political groups – especially Aung San Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy (NLD) – and the military worked together and paved the way for democratisation and what led to the failure of the NLD government;

? Examines the 2020 general election and the declaration of national emergency following the NLD landslide electoral win.

Bringing together a balance of primary ethnographic fieldwork and nuanced analysis, this book will be of great interest to scholars and researchers of Asian and Southeast Asian Studies, politics and political processes, democratisation process and democratic transitions, international relations and peace and conflict studies, especially those concerned with Myanmar.

1 Political Developments since Independence

DOI: 10.4324/9781003219408-1

Introduction

The history of post-independence Burma (now Myanmar) is largely shaped by the legacies of the colonial rule. The British invaded Burma as many as three times before they finally defeated it in January 1886 (Donnison 1953, 28). Before the annexation, Burma proper was inhabited by ethnic Burman or Bama group and the frontier areas were inhabited by different ethnic nationalities. Burma proper and the frontier areas were administered separately. For example, the Burman or Bama were ruled by their king; the Shan were internally ruled by their own sawbwas (princes); and groups such as the Chin and Kachin were ruled by their own chiefs. The British conquest of the Burmese kingdom had also led to the annexation of the frontier areas (Ibid., 32). For a brief period during World War II, Burma was ruled by Japan. The Japanese army provided military training to thirty Burmese youths, who were called Burma Independence Army (BIA) led by its leader Aung San. Burma was placed under Japanese military rule till 1 August 1943, when the country was granted independence under Japanese protection. A year later on 27 March 1945, the BIA switched side to the British army and fought against its former ally Japan (National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma 2003, 8).

Even before the colonial period, the kingdoms of central Burma exercised only nominal authority over the highlands. The colonial administrators argued that the frontier areas were ‘less developed’ politically and economically and, therefore, needed a special treatment. While the Bur-mans lost their monarchy in 1885, the frontier people were able to maintain their traditional political institutions and social practices. Christian missionaries were active within the frontier areas, who then developed the written languages of the frontier people using Roman alphabet rather than the Pali script preferred by the majority Burmans. Due to religious differences, minorities such as the Chin, Kachin and Naga, who are largely Christians, harboured a sense of separate identity from the predominantly Buddhist Burmans. During World War II, when the BIA led by Aung San sided with the Japanese in anticipation for early independence, the frontier people, despite the challenges, remained loyal to the British. The frontier people were also apprehensive that the majority Burmans would not safegaurd their interests after the country’s independence from the British (Bray 1992, 145).

Panglong agreement and the formation of the Union of Burma

Before Burma was granted independence by the British on 4 January 1948, the country had to resolve its internal differences along ethnic lines. The unity of the people was necessary for independence as well as the formation of a union government. In an attempt to achieve that goal, a conference was held in Panglong in the Shan states in March 1946, which was attended by leaders from Burma proper and the frontier areas (Fink 2001, 23). This was the first major conference held in Panglong in preparation for the country’s independence from colonial administration. At the meeting, the Burman leaders assured that the frontier areas would be granted autonomy if they agreed to join the Union of Burma. The frontier leaders were, however, considering a separate entity for themselves by forming a federation of the frontier areas (Sadan 2008, 389). In support of the frontier people, H. N. C. Stevenson, the British director of the frontier areas, made a proposal for the establishment of a United Frontier Union. The proposal was welcomed by the frontier people but strongly opposed by the Anti-Fascist People’s Freedom League (AFPFL) leaders. Stevenson was one of the British officials working to ensure that the concerns of the frontier people were addressed by both the British government and the AFPFL (Walton 2008, 895).

In order to discuss the details for Burma’s independence, it was first necessary to earn the trust of the British government. To pursue that goal, a delegation led by General Aung San left for London in the beginning of 1947 (Smith 1999, 77). Clement Attlee was the British prime minister at that time. The British government advised the delegation that it should not force the frontier people to join the union government against their will. General Aung San, who led the negotiation team, responded that it was the British government’s policy which separated the people of Burma proper and the frontier areas. Aung San was quoted in The London Times newspaper on 14 January 1947 as saying:

We can confidently assert here that so far as our knowledge of our country goes, there should be no insuperable difficulties in the way of a unified Burma provided all races are given full freedom and the opportunity to meet together and to work without the interference of outside interests. So far as we are concerned, we stand for full freedom of all races of our country, including those so-called Karenni states, and we hold strongly the view that no such race and no regime in our country should now be denied the fruits of the freedom that must shortly be achieved by our country and our people.

(Smith 1999, 78)

To allay the fears of discrimination against the frontier people in post-independence, Aung San made a historic statement: ‘If Burma receives one kyat, you will also receive one kyat.’ Kyat is a Burmese currency, which meant that people from Burma proper and the frontier areas would be treated equally. Such assurance from Aung San, who was the de facto leader from Burma proper, convinced some leaders from the frontier areas. Subsequently, twenty-two representatives from the frontier areas (three from the Chin Hills, six from the Kachin hills and thirteen from the Shan states) and Burma proper represented by Aung San signed an agreement at a conference on 12 February 1947. The historic event was called Panglong agreement, named after the venue of the conference. Since then, the day has been celebrated as Union Day. The primary objective of the agreement was to establish a union government where each ethnic group would enjoy autonomy within its own territory. The signing of Panglong agreement was by no means an attempt to abolish the traditional self-rule of the frontier people. One major failure of the conference was the non-participation of ethnic groups other than the aforementioned signatories (Smith 1999, 79).

By cooperating with the Burmese interim government, the Chin, Kachin and Shan leaders anticipated a speedy process of independence from the British. The Panglong agreement adopted certain principles for the formation of the Union of Burma. First, a representative of the hill peoples shall be appointed a counselor to the governor to deal with matters concerning the frontier areas. Second, the counselor shall be assisted by two deputy counselors of respective races who will attend the governor’s executive council meeting when issues pertaining to the frontier areas are discussed. Third, the council will not operate in any way that would deprive any of the frontier areas by granting them full autonomy in internal administration. Fourth, the frontier areas shall enjoy the fundamental democratic rights and privileges similar to any other democratic country. Fifth, the executive council, in consultation with the counselor and deputy counselors of the frontier areas, shall examine the possibility of adopting financial arrangements for Chin and Kachin hills similar to those of Burma proper and the federated Shan states (Universities Historical Research Centre and Innwa Publishing House 1999, 270–1).

One fundamental principle of Panglong agreement was granting autonomy to the frontier people. In other words, the frontier leaders agreed to join the Union of Burma in return for self-government in their own territories and for equal share of the country’s wealth. The Karen, who sent four observers to the conference, believed that they would be granted independence by the British. The 1947 Constitution was dr...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half-Title
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of figures
• List of tables
• Foreword
• Preface to the second edition
• Acknowledgements
• Abbreviations
• Introduction
• 1 Political developments since independence
• 2 Role of civil society
• 3 Power of elites
• 4 Influence of external agencies
• 5 Institutional effects
• Conclusion
• Afterword: The NLD government, the election and the military coup
• Bibliography
• Index