Thousands of protesters in towns and cities across Myanmar have taken to the streets over the past four weeks in protests against the military coup-d’état on 1st February. In response security forces have used live fire, tear gas, flash bangs, water cannons, and stun grenades on the people who are demonstrating, in their efforts to maintain order.
Yesterday at least 38 people were killed attending peaceful pro-democracy rallies in cities across this South East Asian nation in the bloodiest day of violence since the coup. This brings the total number of deaths to at least 50, possibly many more than that, with the situation deteriorating by the day. Around 1,200 people have been detained, with many relatives unsure where their loved ones are being held.
Protesters have been demanding the release of democratically elected officials, including the country's leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, whose National League for Democracy Party won a landslide victory in last November's elections after the military-affiliated Union Solidarity and Development Party, widely regarded as a proxy for the military, captured only 33 of the 476 seats. While military leaders alleged voter fraud, no proof for their claim has been found. This simply added to their humiliation - a public loss of respect which, right across Asia, is the most hurtful of all insults.
Thus it was that in the early morning of 1 February 2021, the day parliament was set to convene, the Tatmadaw, Myanmar's military, detained State Counsellor Aung San Suu Kyi and a few other members of the ruling party, handed power to military chief Min Aung Hlaing, and declared a state of emergency for one year.
Since then there has been growing outrage globally. World leaders have been calling for Myanmar's elected government to be restored, while Kyaw Moe Tun, Myanmar's Ambassador to the UN, called upon the international community to use any means necessary to help end the coup.
The context, however, is complicated by any number of factors in which a sudden shift to pure democracy might not necessarily be in the best interests of the country. Following the departure of the British in 1948, indeed for most of its independent years, Myanmar has been immersed in rampant ethnic rivalries and civil skirmishes, in which there have been consistent and systematic human rights violations. The latest of these, concerning the Rohingya Muslim minority in Rakhine State, hit the news headlines when, incredulous to many, Aung San Suu Kyi appeared at the International Court in the Hague to defend her government's actions.
Those same security forces - including members of the Light Infantry Divisions long documented to be engaged in human rights abuses in conflict zones throughout the country - are now escalating their deadly crackdown on peaceful demonstrators.
Although the junta that seized power in 1962 was formally dissolved in 2011, the military never fully relinquished its supremacy. Since the 2010 election, the new government embarked on a series of reforms to direct the country towards a more liberal, so-called 'disciplined' democracy, a mixed economy, and reconciliation, although doubts still persist about the motives underpinning such reforms.
It can be argued that the chief concern of the military has been to maintain order, while tolerating a faux democratic administration to set the scene for economic sanctions to be lifted and normal international trade and relations resumed. Although that is a fairly cynical view I believe it is close to the truth. Many in the military top brass, including former General Thein Sein, were concerned to institute reforms while maintaining the stability of their country rather than to benefit personally from the trappings of power. Others in the ranks were clearly not so keen.
Last year, just before the pandemic closed borders, I was invited to work with a group of Burmese businessmen and young people in Tanintharyi State on the entrepreneurial future of Myanmar. At that stage the military presence was barely visible. But it stalked public activities like a lost shadow detached from its body, loitering sullenly in full view. There were whispers even then that a few high level malcontents in the military were planning some form of action should results from the forthcoming election not work in their favour.
It became clear to me during that short visit that the military needed to find a revitalized purpose in order to shift from not really knowing what its role was or could be, towards a partnership with the government - helping to create the conditions whereby economic and social development could proceed apace, by enforcing the rule of law, eliminating corruption, and generating trust in democratic ideals. Alas it was not to be.
When any incumbent administrative power governing a nation has its authority eroded to the extent that it governs by fear, loses confidence in its instrumental ability to fulfil its purpose, or grasps that it is failing to do so because of exceptional circumstances like war, for example, there are really only three options available. The first is to set aside partisan and ideological constraints in order to evolve a working collaboration with others. The second is to relinquish power entirely, if temporarily, by calling a general election. The third is to ignore reality, insist that its authority is supreme, and use a mixture of force and propaganda in order to remain in power. This is tyranny.
Let us be very clear. Oppression and despotism is occurring in Myanmar today. The military will use all kinds of rationalizations to justify their actions. Some of these may come close to being valid. But while the current situation of terror and brutality prevails, and the military and police are the perpetrators of such violence, it means they have chosen to go to war with their own citizens.
The present situation is bound to deteriorate because of four factors with which we must contend:
Losing so many seats at the 2020 election meant the military felt deeply humiliated. They lost face because they appeared to be weak and needed to do something to restore their dignity and pride. To them it must have appeared that people respected them less than previously. However, saving face by instituting a coup, just to avoid looking weak, and to re-establish the trust citizens had in their armed forces, was bound to backfire. In the face of massive civil disobedience, the generals now look lost and weak - the very thing they were trying to escape. They have fallen into a trap from which respect and admiration will not easily be salvaged. Saving face comes from preserving self-esteem. It requires empathy and self-awareness - not narcissism or sociopathic aggression. It means respecting and appreciating the dignity of all citizens, particularly those who disagree with you. And it demands those with power to openly and transparently embrace conflicting perspectives, using the motives of others as an opportunity to build rather than to divide the nation. The generals do not grasp this imperative. Even if they did understand it they would not be inclined to go down this path for fear that it could be interpreted as backing down - yet another perceived weakness they will do anything to avoid at this stage.
The military have reverted to a power structure of bullying and enforcement that has been proven not to work. Those who lust for power generally have short memories. The heavy-handed nature and incompetence of the junta prior to 2010 produced a nation in danger of becoming a failed state. This social and economic distress was the very reason they relinquished power in 2010. Going back to old habits and structures, expecting the results to be any different, without consciously installing new beliefs and behaviours, is sheer folly. Like all institutions that prove to be viable, the Tatmadaw needs to express its authority within defined limits (rather than via a unilateral declaration that its role and power is absolute and exclusive) and in relation to others who are also charged with the responsibility for the management and development of Myanmar - all within a framework that is socially desirable, ethically and morally defensible, culturally feasible, ecologically responsible, and systemically convincing. The generals do not grasp this, which is why they are likely to persist in their belief that they are morally justified in stepping in to put the country back on track - even though that track, and the destination to which it might lead, have not been explicitly expressed. Nor is there a 'divine right' that gives any organization or individual the authority to usurp the will of the people and assume sovereignty for the administration of the country.
The military has pledged that the state of emergency will exist for a period of 12 months. Then a general election will be held. After more than six years of quasi-military democracy in neighbouring Thailand, some Burmese might scoff at such a pledge. If (or when) a new election is held, unless drastic measures have been put in place to limit the possibility of a repeat performance, like the widespread incarceration or assassination of pro-democracy leaders, or a new Constitution that cements the rights of the military to rule, there is no evidence to suggest that the outcome will be any different from November 2020. If history is any guide, the popularity of Aung San Sui Kyi and her party is likely to be even more popular by then. There is no exit strategy. So what happens when history repeats itself?
As the terror grows and major cities become war zones, streets flowing with the blood of charity workers, paramedics, emergency services personnel and teenage activists, more people around the world will cry out against the junta's unlawful insistence that they have the right to determine their country's future and to kill their citizens at will. The similar use of excessive and lethal force by security forces in towns and cities throughout the country indicates a coordination between army and police units, an overarching national strategy determined at the very top.
The use of lethal force by the military is not crowd control. What we are witnessing in Myanmar is a bloody massacre. It is unlawful in terms of human morality and cannot be justified on any grounds whatsoever.
In the face of such brutality international condemnation will not fade. UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres has appealed to all nations to send a clear message to the military that it must respect the will of the people of Myanmar as expressed through the 2020 election. This will not deter the Tatmadaw. Their course is set. They will not relent. Only this morning a military spokesman told a CNN journalist that Myanmar had survived UN sanctions in the past and would do so again. That they had survived with only a few friends in the past, and they could do that again.
Just as citizens around the world are waking up to oppression and tyranny, Myanmar is closing its doors on that world and retreating into the isolation of becoming a hermit nation once more. Eventually the tide will turn again. But only after considerable human misery, the new reign of terror runs out of steam, or the world community answers the question: how many dead bodies are needed before we actually do something?