The Longtime Process of Democracy Development in Myanmar

Table of contents

• Abstract

• Introduction

• Methodology

• Myanmar’s Democracy Development

• The Revolution of Democracy in Myanmar

• The Democratic Reforms in Myanmar

• The ongoing civil war and ethnic armed conflicts in Myanmar

• Current Displacement Statistics (2025) – Myanmar

• Military Rule in Myanmar: Resource Exploitation, Repression, and the 2021 Coup

• Conclusion

• References

Abstract

The country Myanmar (Burma) where has a very long history of colonialism by foreign powers. The country was ruled by the two prominent foreign powers before Myanmar acquired its dependence in 1948, they are Britain and Japan. The political scene was created in Myanmar by both countries. Myanmar has become an independence country after achieving the independence from the Britain in 1948, that is practiced the democracy ideology under the ruled of Burmese General Aung San (Father of Aung San Su Kyi, The current democratic icon in Myanmar). However, the democracy system in Myanmar faced several problems when the coup d’état happened in 1962. Since that year, Myanmar had faced lots of obstacles and their efforts to regain the democratic system. Therefore, this research paper will demonstrate the longtime process of democracy development in Myanmar since 1948 the country achieved independence until the present days of Myanmar.

Keywords Democracy in Myanmar, Democratic reform, Historical Approach, Ethnic armed conflicts and Military Regime.

Introduction

Myanmar is home to 135 officially recognized ethnic groups, excluding the Rohingya minority, and comprises eight major national races such as Rakhine, Mon, Chin, Shan, Kayah, Bamar (Burman), Kayin (Karen), and Kachin. Despite its abundant natural resources, Myanmar remains one of the least economically developed countries in the world, with nearly one-quarter of its population living in poverty. Ongoing civil conflicts have further undermined economic growth and social stability. Historically, Myanmar lost its independence during the three Anglo-Burmese Wars and, following independence in 1948, endured decades of political turmoil. In 1962, the Burmese military (Tatmadaw) seized power under the strategic policies of the Burma Socialist Programme Party (BSPP), established a centralized, authoritarian regime. Since then, Myanmar’s political transition has been marked by contradictions appearing to signal democratic reforms while often reinforcing military dominance. Observers and activists have long advocated for democratization through a variety of strategies (2017), yet these efforts have frequently been constrained by sanctions, international pressures, and entrenched military rule. The so-called “roadmap to democracy” has witnessed sporadic political activity, but the military junta has largely maintained its grip on power. Opposition groups have responded in two main ways, boycotting political processes altogether or seeking limited participation within government-controlled forums. This dual approach has often served the entrenched military regime more effectively than it has empowered marginalized groups. Efforts by opposition movements to establish a more accountable government in Yangon have faced significant obstacles, as the central regime insists that political transition must be directed from the top down. While revolutionary change at the national level may be urgently required, a sustainable democratic transition is more likely to succeed if it includes active participation from local and ethnic communities. Over the past decades, ethnic groups have played a crucial role in shaping Myanmar’s political and social landscape. However, the failure to address their grievances, ensure autonomy, and guarantee equal rights has hindered the development of a genuine and inclusive democracy.

Methodology

In this research paper, the methodology of this paper is to discuss the Longtime Process of Democracy Development in Myanmar. The data of this paper has been collected to acquire the result for the purpose and scope of this crucial research. In this research secondary data are utilized in order to enrich the paper. For the collection of the secondary data I used, secondary data sources. Moreover, the data are collected from different books of various authors, journals, research gate, magazines, websites, newspapers, and other different research reports.

Discussion

Myanmar’s Democracy Development

In Myanmar, the name State law and order restoration council (SLORC) has been changed to the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) by the military government of Myanmar in the early 1997, however the (SPDC) failed to achieve the support of the people of Myanmar because after the release of Daw Aung San Kyi (A leader of National League for Democracy in Myanmar) and again in the early 2000 the people of Myanmar demand the democracy implementation and have been struggling to change the country. In order to interfere Myanmar’s affair, the international community gave a very strong pressure to the UN in May 2002. Myanmar’s dictatorship military administration has been pressured and criticized by the international community because the people of Myanmar have been seeking help from the world since military illegitimately rule the country. However, the Myanmar military government quickly take the positive approaches in order to diminish the continuous pressure that have been receiving by the international community and there was a historical approach that the democratic process of Myanmar, the situation has been transformed to employ an optimistic approach for Myanmar’s Prime Minister Khin Nyut particularly in implementing a democratic system that protect human rights in Myanmar. The removal of General Swa Maung in early 1992 Khin Nyut is the only responsible supported by General Than Shwe. His appointment as the Prime Minister build a road to democracy, renovating the international community, the confidence of ASEAN and UN through his presentation of a ‘‘Democracy Plan’’, Nevertheless the reform has failed to do well due to the health situation of Khin Nyut because he has to step down after facing critical health problems. (Utusan Melayu, 20 October 2004). The Myanmar government’s capability has been jeopardized in order to persist and carry the implementation of the ‘’Democracy Plan’’ after the resignation of Khin Nyut. It is because of the resignation of Khin Nyut as it is also included the released of Daw Aung San Su Kyi (A leader of NLD, National League for Democracy in Myanmar).

The Revolution of Democracy in Myanmar

Myanmar, a multi-ethnic country comprising groups such as the Bamar, Shan, Rohingya, Karen, Mon, Rakhine, Chin, Kachin, and others, has faced persistent struggles in its pursuit of democracy. One of the most significant democratic movements emerged with the establishment of the National League for Democracy (NLD) in September 1988, under the leadership of Aung San Suu Kyi. The NLD rose as an opposition party against the State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC), which represented the ruling military junta at the time.The NLD attracted widespread support, amassing over 1.3 million members by the early 1990s. Prominent figures, including retired military General Aung Gyi and former Minister of Defense Tin Oo, supported Aung San Suu Kyi in her calls for democracy, human rights, and minority protection. Central to the NLD’s platform was the promotion of human rights, justice, equality, freedom of speech, and the protection of minorities, including the Rohingya and other marginalized groups, who had faced decades of systemic oppression under military rule.The party advocated for a parliamentary democratic system to replace military dominance over legislation, administration, and the judiciary. According to NLD principles, minority groups should have self-determination, freedom of movement, equal opportunity, and legal rights to manage their own affairs in their respective regions.In the 1990 general election, the NLD achieved a historic victory, winning more than 60% of the contested seats (392 out of 485) (Silverstein, 1990:1007–1019). However, the military regime nullified the results and refused to transfer power, placing Aung San Suu Kyi under house arrest for much of the next two decades. Myanmar’s democratic history has been deeply tied to the legacy of General Aung San, Suu Kyi’s father, who founded the Burma National Army (BNA) in the 1930s. The BNA played a pivotal role in Burma’s independence struggle, initially aligning with Japan before joining the Allies in 1945. Despite his landslide electoral victory, Aung San and his multi-ethnic cabinet were assassinated just six weeks after taking office. Following decades of military dictatorship (1962–2011), limited reforms allowed the NLD to re-enter politics. In 2012, the party won most of the 62 parliamentary seats it contested. By 2015, it secured a landslide victory in the general election, although constitutional restrictions prevented Suu Kyi from assuming the presidency. Instead, she became State Counsellor, wielding most executive powers while key security ministries remained under military control.In the November 2020 elections, the NLD expanded its parliamentary majority, defeating the military-backed Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP). Facing declining influence and fearing loss of immunity, the military, led by Senior General Min Aung Hlaing, staged a coup on 1 February 2021, overthrowing the NLD government and arresting its leaders. The coup reignited mass protests and civil disobedience movements across Myanmar, with calls for international intervention, ASEAN mediation, and recognition of the NLD’s electoral mandate. However, foreign military assistance has been limited, and human rights violations by the junta continue unabated. The country remains caught between aspirations for democracy and the entrenched power of military dictatorship. The revolution for democracy in Myanmar reflects a long-standing struggle between civilian governance and military dominance, where minority rights, rule of law, and democratic participation remain central to achieving sustainable peace and national unity.

The Democratic Reforms in Myanmar

The so-called democratic reforms in Myanmar, implemented by the military to ease internal and international pressures, were largely superficial and strategically designed to maintain military control. The 2008 constitution, drafted under military supervision, institutionalized military influence by reserving 25% of seats in both houses of parliament for military personnel and enabling the formation of the military-backed Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP) to contest elections (Fink, 2018).

In the 2015 general elections, the National League for Democracy (NLD), led by Aung San Suu Kyi, won a decisive victory, forming the government. Although constitutional restrictions prevented her from assuming the presidency due to her children holding foreign citizenship, she was appointed as ‘State Counsellor’ a position equivalent to Prime Minister allowing her to exercise executive authority de facto (Steinberg, 2019). The 2020 elections again resulted in an overwhelming victory for the NLD, signaling popular support for democratic transition and constitutional reforms aimed at gradually reducing military dominance.

Despite these developments, the military, under General Min Aung Hlaing, orchestrated a coup on 1 February 2021, detaining NLD leaders, including Aung San Suu Kyi, and declaring a state of emergency nationwide. This move effectively halted democratic progress and reinforced military authoritarianism (Human Rights Watch, 2021).

In response, the opposition formed the National Unity Government (NUG), a parallel government committed to restoring democracy and protecting the rights of all ethnic minorities. The NUG has issued official statements condemning the military for committing crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing, and acts of genocide, particularly against the Rohingya population. The NUG emphasizes that recognition of the Rohingya as an indigenous ethnic group, alongside other minorities, is essential for national unity, reconciliation, and international legitimacy (NUG, 2022).

The inclusion of Rohingya representatives in political processes is considered critical by the NUG, as any resolution of the crisis without their participation would undermine both domestic and international efforts for justice and sustainable federal democracy. Moreover, accountability mechanisms through the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal Court (ICC) are expected to continue investigations and prosecutions of all individuals responsible for atrocities, regardless of whether they serve in a federal democratic government or the military junta (United Nations, 2022).

The Ongoing Civil War and Ethnic Armed Conflicts in Myanmar

Since its independence in 1948, Myanmar (formerly the Burma Union) has struggled to achieve national unity, marked by the 1947 assassination of General Aung San and his cabinet, an event that undercut the spirit of the Panglong Agreement aimed at unifying Myanmar and its frontier regions. Just a month after independence, insurgencies erupted, including those led by the Communist Party of Burma and armed groups in Rakhine State. By early 1949, the Karen National Union had taken up arms, launching Myanmar into prolonged internal conflict one of the longest-running civil wars in ASEAN. Myanmar officially recognized 135 ethnic groups, among its principal national races, Bamar, Shan, Karen (Kayin), Rakhine, Mon, Chin, Kayah (Karenni), and Kachin. “Despite being indigenous to Rakhine State, the Rohingya are not recognized among Myanmar’s 135 official ethnic groups for example, Myanmar’s 2014 census relegated them to a generic ‘Other’ category. This bureaucratic exclusion forms a key institutional basis for their statelessness and systematic human rights violations, enabling decades of discriminatory policies such as restrictions on movement, marriage, access to education and healthcare, and the denial of citizenship under the 1982 Citizenship Law. These institutionalized practices have entrenched social, political, and economic marginalization, laying the foundation for periodic waves of violence and forced displacement.”. Ongoing violence, particularly in border and rural regions, has been characterized by brutal ‘four cuts’ counterinsurgency tactics, leading to mass casualties and widespread suffering. In Rakhine State, ethnic and religious conflicts escalated long before independence, notably beginning in 1939 and intensifying through World War II with a premeditated massacre of Rohingya in March 1942. Subsequent communal violence occurred in 2001 and again in June 2012, culminating in a wave of displacement, destruction of homes, and loss of life over thousands killed, countless injured, and approximately 8,614 homes destroyed around 140,000 were internally displaced, with Rohingya making up 86% of affected populations. The 2017 military crackdown led to the most catastrophic exodus in modern memory, involving systematic killings, sexual violence, destruction of villages, and human rights abuses that international bodies branded as genocide, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity. Nearly one million of Rohingya fled to Bangladesh, joining earlier waves to create one of the world’s largest refugee crises.

Current Displacement Statistics (2025) – Myanmar

The ongoing conflicts and persecution in Myanmar have forced hundreds of thousands of people from multiple ethnic communities to flee their homes. The following table summarizes the current displacement situation, including Rohingya refugees in Cox’s Bazar Bangladesh and internally displaced persons (IDPs).

      Military Rule in Myanmar: Resource Exploitation, Repression, and the 2021 Coup

Myanmar endured nearly five decades of military dictatorship, during which the Tatmadaw entrenched its power through authoritarian strategies that extended beyond economic underdevelopment. Rather than serving the populace, the regime relied on coercion instilling fear, sowing division, and forming implicit alliances with domestic elites and neighboring powers, all to retain control and suppress democratic transformation. State revenues from sectors like gas, now central to Western sanctions, were monopolized by the regime as a “rentier state” mechanism for authority. For example, until its withdrawal, Chevron relinquished its 41.1% share in Myanmar’s key Yadana gas field, a move sanctioned following international pressure over junta revenues. Following the 1962 coup, General Ne Win and the Union Revolutionary Council replaced the democratically elected AFPFL government, initiating 26 years of totalitarian rule. Despite brief liberalizations, the military maintained dominance through constitutionally reserved seats, economic privileges, and coercive governance. Since the coup of February 1, 2021, anti-regime resistance has surged nationwide, marked by simultaneous opposition from ethnic armed groups and mass civilian movements. Nearly every region in Myanmar has voiced unified support for democratic transition. In a striking act of defiance, Ambassador Kyaw Moe Tun addressed the UN General Assembly, calling on the international community to take “any means necessary” to restore democracy accompanied by the three-finger salute, the protest movement’s emblem. Within a day, the junta dismissed him, although the UN has not formally recognized this dismissal and continues treating him as Myanmar’s representative. Economically, Myanmar faces deepening crisis. Since the coup, its economy has contracted under compounded pressures from conflict, flooding, and industrial disruption. Approximately 3 million people are internally displaced, while poverty rates have climbed to 32.1%, returning to levels unseen since 2015.

These converging crises political repression, economic collapse, and widespread resistance underscore that military domination cannot sustain legitimacy indefinitely. International solidarity, targeted sanctions (such as those targeting MOGE), and the continued advocacy of figures like Kyaw Moe Tun have elevated the struggle for democracy onto a global platform.

Conclusion

Myanmar is a multi-ethnic nation comprising diverse groups such as the Shan, Rohingya, Bamar, Karen, Mon, Rakhine, Chin, Kachin, and many others. The historical, cultural, and socio-political differences among these ethnic communities have led to longstanding tensions, unresolved conflicts, and recurring demands for autonomy since the country’s independence in 1948. Despite various attempts to foster unity, including the 1998 ceasefire agreements with certain separatist groups, the pursuit of inclusive democracy remains largely unrealized.

The government’s persistent refusal to grant meaningful autonomy and equitable rights to minority groups has perpetuated cycles of internal conflict. Widespread human rights violations, particularly against the Rohingya Muslim population in western Myanmar, reflect systemic oppression and discriminatory policies that have marginalized several ethnic communities, including the Mon, Karen, and Shan, both within and beyond Myanmar’s borders.

Efforts at national reconciliation, including campaigns launched since 1989 to promote interethnic understanding, have failed due to entrenched state-sponsored discrimination and the privileging of majority groups. This has drawn significant pressure from the United Nations and the international community, yet substantial reforms toward inclusive governance remains absent. The resignation of key figures such as General Khin Nyunt, once regarded as the “architect of Myanmar’s democracy plan,” did little to alter the trajectory of exclusionary politics.

After decades of struggle, Myanmar’s transition toward genuine democracy continues to be hindered by the lack of political will to ensure equal rights, justice, and representation for all ethnic groups. Without meaningful structural reforms and the inclusion of marginalized minorities in the democratic process, the vision for a peaceful, unified, and democratic Myanmar will remain unfulfilled.

References

Demokrasi Myanmar Diteruskan (Myanmar’s Democracy Continued). Utusan Malaysia. 22 October 2004.

Noor Azam Shairi (2002). Sistem Demokrasi Myanmar Dalam Pemulihan (Myanmar’s Democracy System in

restoration). Utusan Malaysia. 6 May.

Josef Silverstien (2004). Burma’s Struggle for Democracy: The Army Against the People Australia: ANU E Press.

Kamarulnizam Abdullah (2001). Myanmar Masih Belum Bersedia (Myanmar is still not prepared). Massa. No.305. 18-24 August.

H.Wheeler, C. (2019). Human Rights Enforcement at the Borders. Journal of International Criminal Justice 17, 609-631.

Ibrahim, A. (2016). The Rohingyas inside Myanmar’s hidden genocide. London: C. Hurst & Co. (Publishers) Ltd.

Bari, M. A. (2018). The Rohingya Crisis. England: Kube Publishing Ltd.

Abdelkader, E. (2013). The Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar: Past, present, and future. Oregon Review of International Law, 15(3), 393-412.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259630630_The_Role_of_Parliament_in_Myanmar’s_Reforms and_Transition_to_Democracy

Laoutides, A. W. (2019). MYANMAR’S ‘ROHINGYA’ CONFLICT: MISCONCEPTIONS AND COMPLEXITY. Asian Affairs, 50:1, 60-79.

Alam, M. A. (1999). A Short Historical Background of Arakan. Chittagong.

Mukherjee, K. (2019). Race relations, nationalism and the humanitarian Rohingya crisis in contemporary

Myanmar. Asian Journal of Political Science, 27:2, 235-251. https://d2071andvip0wj.cloudfront.net/28-myanmar-the-military-regime-s-view-of-the-world.pdf

Mahmood, S. S., Wroe, E., Fuller, A., & Leaning, J. (2017). The Rohingya people of Myanmar: health, human rights, and identity. The Lancet, 389(10081), 1841-1850.

About Author

Mr Kaisayr Husein, both his Ph.D. in Education and International Relations and MA in Political Science and Public Administration research focused on the Rohingya identity, refugee crises, migration, legal rights, and citizenship issues. His research explores the longtime process of democracy development, conflict analysis, genocide studies, ethnic minority rights, religious discrimination, statelessness, and forced displacement, with particular case studies on the Rohingya crises in Bangladesh and India. Mr Kaisayr’s academic contributions extend to international refugee law (IRL), migration policy, legal status, and the historical context of Arakan.