Myanmar Coup Feb 2021: What's Going on and Why?

On 1st February 2021, political power in Myanmar was seized by the Tatmadaw (the Myanma military). This came as a result of allegations of voter fraud in the November 2020 election. The military gave their reason for executing the coup as an act of safeguarding the democracy of the nation. Few believe this excuse due to the long and difficult historical relationship of the military and democracy in the country. Political observers and historians are now witnessing a very familiar situation that has already occurred twice in Burma’s short independence. The situation itself represents the unending theme of military dictatorship, thinly veiled under claims of keeping the public safe from politicians, while simultaneously committing war crimes and genocidal campaigns. As the third instance of a military coup following a slow struggle to become fully democratic, many have been left to ask if Burma will ever be free of its own military. Many others ask why this has been such an issue for the South East Asian nation.

You may be asking yourself, ‘Is it Burma or Myanmar?’ The truth is, it’s both. Before the arrival of Europeans, there was no Burma or Myanmar. Instead of a name for the region, Bama and Myanma were used to label the inhabitants of the specific area, but these were adjectives, not nouns. Misunderstanding the local language and with the knowledge that the dominant ethnic group were the Bamar, the British began calling the region Burma. This stuck and became the official name in English which remained until 1989. The military government at the time made the decision to change the English name of the country to Myanmar in an attempt to make it more inclusive of the many ethnic groups living there. Many of these ethnic groups do not identify with the term Myanma of old, however. The symbolic gesture was meaningless and, in many ways, showed the junta’s lack of caring towards minorities. Even Aung San Suu Kyi, Burma’s elected head of state has noted that it does not matter which term is used, though many often continue to use the unofficial ‘Burma’ to show non-conformity to the ‘illegitimate’ Tatmadaw rule.

So on to the history that has formed Burma into the unique and troubled state that it is today, much of which stems from the period of imperial British rule. From the very outset of colonial rule, the British attitude in Burma was one of general indifference, as the UK stumbled into possessing Burma without any clear intention for what to do with the region. A discompassionate and haphazard system of divide and rule saw the ethnic groups kept apart as the only clear aim was to keep the population under control. The Kachin and Shan groups which reside in the mountainous border regions of the country were given greater autonomy by the British as their lands were far less valuable than the rich Irrawaddy valley and delta. As a result, many of the local imperial security forces were recruited from these groups as they favoured the British more highly than the Bamar. Ethnic divides in the nation can be clearly traced back to this regional division.

Over a century of colonialism later, Burma was caught in the worst of the Japanese campaign against Britain in WWII. Resentment towards imperial rule and ethnocentric divides would deepen to tipping point. By 1943, Burmese revolutionaries, most notably Aung San (father to the Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi), would liaise with Japanese army officials to collaborate the liberation of Burma from British control. As the Japanese pressed their hold on South East Asia, they received assistance from these freedom fighters. Many of the ethnic minority groups within Burma’s borders continued to fight alongside the British, as they foresaw the diminished state of their independence in a free nation. The British campaign against Japan also saw much of the country devastated in a gruelling scorched earth strategy. India also suffered as a result of this, with an extensive famine in Bengal and mass starvation throughout British South Asia.

As the Japanese position in the war became untenable, the Burmese resistance fighters switched sides, once again cooperating with a British government that promised freedom after the conflict. This did not repair the damage done between the ethnic groups, however, as resentment and distrust had been deeply rooted by the internal fighting. After the war, and particularly after the independence of India, British control over Burma became clearly impractical and unnecessary. Aung San rose in British standing. Despite having fought alongside the Japanese, his efforts against them in the later years of the war put him in the high praises of many British officers. After a period of whittling down potential individuals, he became the sole candidate to head the free Burmese government. Reaching out to non-Bermens in the nation, Aung San became popular even among minorities, most notably for his guarantees of maintained ethnic autonomy in the Shan state and the northern regions. Months before independence was official achieved, however, Aung San was assassinated by a political rival. The state of fragile trust between groups was shattered and the long, troubled road ahead was set in motion.

Busy managing the independence processes of an entire empire, Britain elected not to begin the long and painstaking process of finding another candidate. Instead, the British placed General Ne Win, the head of the Burmese military, in charge of a placeholder government. Thus, the military state began. Six months was the estimated time that a democratic system should be in place, but this time came and went. U Nu was the sitting Prime Minister from this period until 1958, though Ne Win held much of the nation’s power thanks to the powers granted to the Tatmadaw in order to fight the multiple insurgencies within the country. These had begun almost immediately after independence as ethnic minorities fought to retain their autonomy from a centralised Burmese government. Ne Win was officially asked to spearhead a caretaker government in 1958 after U Nu won a vote on his impeachment. Its purpose was to oversee the establishment of an improved democratic system and a new election. In 1962 Ne Win executed a coup to solidify absolute control of the government by the military. Much like the coup witnessed in recent months, Ne Win’s was done under the stated pretence of ensuring the security of the population against an inefficient and corrupt government. The reality of this was much more closely characterised by personal power dynamics and authoritarian ambitions.

Under Ne Win’s direct rule Burma started to resemble a communist state. It incorporated Soviet-style regional councils and the nationalisation of industries similar to policies in China. State-control of agricultural prices – the nation’s largest export – led to food shortages and encouraged black market sales. Rather than selling their produce to the government for artificially low prices, farmers would often sell to illegal vendors for a greater profit. This food would often reach the insurgents within the Shan state and northern border region as they did not have ready access to the same level of agrarian land. The insurgents also became familiar with the black market, as their main commodity was in the drugs trade which paid for their causes. Fighting from the Chinese civil war also spilt into the northern border that Burma shared with the large communist nation. Communism was just another kind of insurgency faced by the Tatmadaw and caused tensions between the two states to worsen. Ne Win ended his official role leading the nation in 1981 but continued as the head of a council that oversaw many of the government’s decisions.

In 1988 a second coup occurred. At the outset, it appeared as if democracy was actually in Burma’s near future. The poor handling of civil unrest in the country highlighted by violent clashes between protestors and the army prompted high ranking officials to take charge. Elections were promised and one was established for the following year. The National League of Democracy Party, headed by Aung Sa Suu Kyi won by a landslide, a result the Tatmadaw were not counting on. Having received an unsatisfactory result, the military stalled for time, claiming a new constitution was required before the elected party could assume power. The new junta cracked down on political opposition, even brutally assaulting monks inside the country that dare speak out against it.

It wasn't until the 2010's that democracy once again looked like a promising possibility. The military was slowly giving up power and elected officials became commonplace. In 2016 Aung San Suu Kyi finally assumed power as the elected head of government and the nation's future looked bright. Two years later, however, the world was shown that all was not well in the new democratic state. In 2018 a rebel group, the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army attacked a series of military outposts in the southwest of the country. The Tatmadaw reaction was fierce and unforgiving. Mainly claims of genocidal acts and war crimes have been made in relation to the incidents, bringing Aung San Suu Kyi under great scrutiny as a result. Many have even demanded her peace prize be revoked. From the beginning of independence, Burmese history has been fraught with international and domestic tensions. Ethnic and religious cleansing have formed a staple, including the mass forced deportation of Burmese Muslims into India and Bangladesh; the Rohingya in particular.

An election was held in November 2020. Reaffirmed in their position, the Suu Kyi's NDL Party won by a comfortable margin. Opposition accusations arose around voter fraud, giving the Tatmadaw an opportunity. With Suu Kyi's diminished international popularity and a fresh excuse, the military seized power and claimed to be the righteous defenders of Burmese democracy. Though to those who know the history of the nation, it is apparent that this is yet another power grab by a politically invested military. The global community is in uproar, Suu Kyi remains under house arrest and fresh international sanctions have been levied against Burma itself. Within the country, over a hundred civilians have died in protests, and the worlds longest civil war continues against multiple domestic insurgencies. Only the months ahead will tell of how this vicious struggle between military control and democracy will continue.

---

Afroza Anwary, “Atrocities against the Rohingya Community of Myanmar,” Indian Journal of Asian Affairs 31, no. 1/2, (2018).

BBC World, “Myanmar coup: Aung San Suu Kyi appears in court to face fresh charges.” https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-56235405 (last accessed 14/03/2021).

Bob Hudson, Nyein Lwin & Win Maung, “The Origins of Bagan: New Dates and Old Inhabitants,” Asian Perspectives 40, no.1 (2001).

Daniel P. Sullivan, “Aung San Suu Kyi’s Ultimate Test,” Harvard International Review 38, no. 1, (2016).

David I. Steinberg, Burma/Myanmar: What Everyone Need to Know. (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2010).

Donald M. Seekins, Historical Dictionary of Burma (Myanmar), (The Scarecrow Press: Lanham 2006).

Elliot Bynum et all, Ten Conflicts to Worry About in 2021. 11-13, Rep. (Elliot Bynum, et all Eds.). Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project, (2021).

Hongweie Fan, “The 1967 anti-Chinese riots in Burma and Sino-Burmese relations,” Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 43, no. 2, (2012).

Hugh Tinker, “Burma's Struggle for Independence: The Transfer of Power Thesis Re-Examined,2 Modern Asian Studies 20, no. 3, (1986).

John F. Cady, A History of Modern Burma. (New York: Cornell University Press 1958).

John S. Furnivall, “Twilight in Burma: Independence and After,” Pacific Affairs 22, no. 2, (1949).

Mathew J. Walton, “Ethnicity, Conflict, and History in Burma: The Myths of Panglong”, Asian Survey 48, no. 6, (2008).

Robert L. Solomon, “Saya San and the Burmese Rebellion,” Modern Asian Studies 3, no. 3, (1969).

Sir Arthur P. Phayre, History of Burma: Burma Proper, Pegu, Taungu, Tenasserim, and Arakan. (London: Truber and Co 1883).

Surendra P. Singh, “Indian Nationalism and Burma,” Proceedings of the Indian History Congress 59, (1998).

Thant Myint-U, The Hidden History of Burma: Race, Capitalism and the Crisis of Democracy in the 21st Century. (New York: W.W Norton & Company 2019).

Thant Myint-U, The Making of Modern Burma. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2000).

Tin M. M. Than, “The Essential Tension: Democratisation and the Unitary State in Myanmar (Burma),” South East Asia Research 12, no. 2 (2004).

Yingcong Dai, “A Disguised Defeat: The Myanmar Campaign of the Qing Dynasty,” Modern Asian Studies 38, no. 1 (2004).