The TLDR: Ever since the military seized power on February 1, citizens have been flooding the streets in defiance. So far, the military is showing restraint, but it has been very successful in crushing pro-democracy movements for most of Myanmar’s past. We look at whether a new generation can ensure a different outcome this time around.

A quick history recap

Myanmar has been under military rule for most of its history—with brief dalliances with democracy in between—and struggled with civil war, international isolation, and widespread poverty. Here’s a brief overview:

• The first military coup took place in 1962, and General U Ne Win held power for the next 26 years.
• In 1988, there were massive student-led protests triggered by food shortages and economic pain. Millions rose in defiance and an interim civilian government briefly took power.
• But the subsequent army crackdown killed at least 3,000 and displaced thousands of others who fled to neighbouring countries. 
• Aung San Suu Kyi rose to prominence during these protests, and was arrested in 1989. She spent the next 15 years in prison and under house arrest. She received the Nobel peace prize in 1991 for her role in the 1988 resistance.
• Ne Win resigned but the junta stayed in place, renaming Burma as Myanmar in 1989.
• In 2007, the people rose up again as part of the “saffron revolution”—this time sparked by steep hikes in the price of fuel and led by Buddhist monks in saffron robes.
• The military again crushed the protests, but put in place a new constitution—which gives it widespread powers even under civilian rule. 
• In 2010, Suu Kyi was released, and the junta unexpectedly dissolved itself and turned power over to a transitional government.
• Suu Kyi finally took power as the nation’s civilian leader in 2015 after the nation’s first freest election—but continued to support the military, especially its violent and bloody campaign against Rohingya Muslims. 
• That’s until the same military kicked her out earlier this month.

Point to note: Many critics argue that Suu Kyi’s ouster may be just rewards for years of appeasement:

”[She has] done little to marginalize the military or push forward real democratic reform. Instead, she had created a party in which she wielded enormous power, disdained important institutions like a free media, and continually defended the military’s often brutal actions, minimizing the armed forces’ massive abuses against the Rohingya.”

But why this sudden coup?

The election: The military-backed Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP) did very poorly in the November elections—while Suu Kyi’s party won 80% of the vote. USDP and the military alleged widespread fraud. So the military moved quickly to take power hours before the Parliament was scheduled to convene—and constitutionally endorse the election results.

Some experts argue, the grand plan is to take charge, rewrite the constitution to give the military even more power—and then negotiate with pro-democracy forces from a position of power. 

A leader-in-waiting: The army has long been projecting Commander-in-Chief Gen. Min Aung Hlaing was a tough leader. And 166 seats in Parliament are reserved for the military as per the constitution. The plan was that if USDP won at least 167 seats, it would form the government and install him as President. However, it only scored a paltry 33:

“This set the alarm bells ringing in the headquarters of Tatmadaw, as the Myanmar military is called. The Generals may have sensed that even the limited democratic experiment was gradually threatening the military’s entrenched interests with Suu Kyi remaining immensely popular.”

The pandemic: Since the military’s plan to gain electoral legitimacy failed, the military went to Plan B while it still had time: “They’re potentially using this global opportunity, where other leaders are focused on all of the crises around Covid-19 and economic recession, to seize whatever power they can with impunity.”

Will the protests succeed?

It’s hard to say right now since the military have not clamped down with any seriousness. While three protesters have been killed, security forces have shown remarkable restraint. The success of the movement depends on several factors.

A new generation: of protesters have taken to the streets this time—born roughly between the late 1990s and 2012. And they’ve been using an eye-catching range of memes, slogans, cartoons, and cultural symbols—including the three-fingered salute from ‘Hunger Games’. 

Their numbers are certainly impressive, as this image shows:

And they have been quick to use technology to evade the military—and get their message out to the world. The Conversation is optimistic that they will be harder to isolate and crush unlike previous generations:

“They are politically and technically literate. They inhabit a wider world than young pro-democracy activists in Myanmar have done in the past. They have access to new places and spaces of protest thanks to the technological benefits of globalisation. They are actively forging new networks of solidarity and resistance beyond their country and communities.”

But, but, but: since this generation has never experienced the full wrath of the military, they are also a little naive. When Al Jazeera asked one 18-year old if he was worried about a violent response, he laughed: “No, I’m not afraid of the police. I love them. I want them to join us.”

Leaderless or disorganized? As one activist describes it: “This movement is leaderless—people are getting on the streets in their own way and at their own will.” That sounds inspiring in theory, but experts worry that it was this disorganisation that doomed previous uprisings. A veteran of the 1988 protests writes:

“I hope the protesters today soon realize what we learned then: Public pressure alone cannot lead to a genuine political transition. Without a sound strategy for achieving concrete goals, we will always end up, sooner or later, on the receiving end of repression and under some form of military rule.”

A long-term strategy: As Deutsche Welle points out, protesters have to move beyond anger:

“...[T]he decisive factor for success this time around will be whether the protest movement is better organized and coordinated. There is no sign of the military giving in. The stamina of the demonstrators in sticking it out for a long period is therefore critical. Anger has mostly driven the call to action over the past two weeks. However, eventually, anger wears off and gives way to exhaustion.”

A pragmatic approach: Experts are unanimous that ousting the military will be impossible—and such demands are likely to exacerbate its response. Negotiation not confrontation may offer the only way forward:

“Rather than making rhetorical demands (like, ‘restore power to the people’) or demands that the military simply won’t accede to at this point (like endorsing the results from the November election), they must use the current protests as leverage to obtain, via international negotiators, that the Tatmadaw won’t disband or otherwise sideline the N.L.D.”

The bottomline: As one academic told Vox, “Transitions to democracy from a military regime are very, very difficult.” In a few months, Myanmar may well find itself back where it started—under a military boot, and isolated from the world. Or a negotiated compromise may eke out a little bit more democracy from a weakened military. The road to democracy is not a sprint but a marathon.

Reading list

Vox has the best and most detailed overview. The Conversation offers an optimistic view of the new generation of protesters, while Deutsche Welle offers a measured assessment of their prospects. Council on Foreign Relations has an excellent background report on Myanmar’s history. Lowy Institute looks at the definition of a coup. A must read: This New York Times op-ed by Min Zin who leads a think-tank in Myanmar.