On 1 February 2021, news broke that the armed forces had taken
control in Burma - otherwise known as Myanmar.
Having started a transition to multi-party democracy just a decade ago, this marks a
major step back for a country that spent more than 50 years under military rule.
So, how and why have the armed forces been so central to Burmese politics for so long?
And why have they retaken control now?
[MUSIC]
Hello and welcome. If you're new my name is James Ker-Lindsay and here I take an
informed look at international relations, conflict and the origins of countries.
There was a time when the role of the military in politics was a
central topic for anyone interested in statehood.
Around the world, numerous countries have had some degree of military intervention in politics.
Since 1945, Argentina, Chile, Brazil, Nigeria, Pakistan, Thailand, Indonesia,
South Korea, Greece, Turkey, Spain and Portugal - to name a few prominent
examples - have all experienced extended periods of military rule.
However, over recent decades there's been a dramatic decline in such cases.
Even countries where the military was long seen as a key factor in
national politics have gradually seen the armed forces fade into the background.
So much so that until recently the only country in the world
that remained under direct military rule was Mali, in West Africa.
That was until the start of February 2021, when news broke that there'd been a coup d'etat
in Burma and that the country was once again under the direct control of the country's armed forces.
For many observers, it was a familiar story.
The country had been under military rule
for the large majority of the time since it became an independent country in the late 1940s.
And yet, over the past decade,
it too appeared to be slowly making the transition to civilian-led multi-party democracy.
So, what happened?
Burma - today, more widely known as Myanmar - lies in South East Asia.
At 680,000 square kilometres, or 260,000
square miles, it's the 39th largest of the 193 members of the United Nations.
Its population is in the region of 55 million.
Highly diverse, it's estimated the country is home to over a hundred different
ethnolinguistic and religious communities.
The largest single group are the Bamar, also known as the Burmans.
Predominantly Buddhists, they make up about 55 to 60 percent of the population.
Other major groups include the Karen, who make up almost 10 percent,
and the Shan, who make up about seven percent.
Other notable groups include ethnic Chinese and the Rohingya;
a muslim community in the far northwest of the country that's come under increased
international scrutiny following the government's brutal crackdown
against them - a campaign that the United Nations has openly called ethnic cleansing.
I won't go into detail on this here,
but I hope to return to several of these issues in future videos.
The country has a long and rich history with the
first Burmese kingdom emerging almost a thousand years ago.
But, for our purposes, the story really
starts with the British conquest in the early 19th century.
Following a series of wars that stretched over 60 years,
by the start of the 20th century Burma had become a province of British India.
This lasted until 1937, when it became a crown colony in its own right.
By the start of the Second World War, the country was increasingly agitating for independence.
And in 1942 Japanese forces invaded Burma with the assistance of the so-called Burma
Independence Army - a group formed to fight against British colonial rule.
However, the alliance broke down and the Army joined forces with other groups to
form the Anti-Fascist People's Freedom League, the AFPFL, under the leadership of General Aung Sang.
Although British rule was re-established at the end of the war, in 1947 the United Kingdom
made it clear that the country would become independent alongside India and Pakistan.
On 4 January 1948, the Union of Burma became a sovereign state - joining the
UN a few months later as the organisation's 58th member.
Interestingly, and in marked contrast to India and Pakistan,
Burma didn't retain the British king as head of state.
Instead, it became a republic.
Likewise, it chose not to join the British Commonwealth;
becoming one of the very few former British colonies that didn't.
From the start the country faced serious problems.
A few months prior to independence, Aung Sang, then serving as the premier under British rule,
and widely regarded as the father of the nation, was assassinated by political rivals.
At the same time, the country also faced numerous insurgencies from various ethnic minorities,
including the Karen and the Shan, as well as by communist rebels.
Against these serious challenges, the armed forces, which traced their origins to the Burma
Independence Army came to assume a key role as the defender of the new state's unity and sovereignty.
This proved to be especially important when, in October 1958, following a split in the AFPFL,
the military formally stepped in and established a caretaker government
under General Ne Win, the chief of staff of the armed forces.
In the event, this initial period of military rule proved to be short-lived.
In February 1960, the country held democratic elections.
This saw a resounding win by one of the factions of the AFPFL.
But the military soon became disillusioned with the new government
and, on 2 March 1962, they stepped in again.
And, for a second time, General Ne Win took the reigns of power.
More to the point, this time he'd remain in power
for 26 years - first as prime minister and then as president.
Avowedly Marxist in orientation, he now made Burma a one-party state
under the Burma Socialist Programme Party, BSPP.
Although the country nominally moved to a mixed political system under a new constitution in 1974,
the military essentially retained control.
However, by the middle of the 1980s, pressure for political change was growing.
After two decades of repression and poor economic management, the country had become
one of the poorest nations in the world and was widely regarded as a development disaster.
In 1988, widespread protests erupted.
After several months, Ne Win stepped down.
But hopes of a return to democracy were short-lived.
On 18 September, the military leadership ousted the BSPP government and instituted
a new administration under the so-called State Law and Order Restoration Council, the SLORC.
Despite the brutal crackdown that followed - which saw hundreds,
if not thousands killed - the new regime nevertheless promised multi-party elections.
In the meantime, opposition to the military regime grew.
One of the leading figures was Aung Sang Suu Kyi, the daughter of Aung San.
A co-founder of the National League for Democracy, NLD,
her criticisms of the military hunter saw her put under house arrest in 1989.
Despite this, on the 27 May 1990, the NLD won an overwhelming victory in national elections.
However, the result was rejected by the military leadership.
On the 27 July 1990, the SLORC issued Declaration 1/90, in which it announced
that the elections had really been about setting up a constitutional convention for the country
and that it would retain power to preserve the country's unity, solidarity and sovereignty.
Although Aung San Suu Kyi was awarded the 1991 Nobel Peace Prize
for her campaign to challenge military rule, and international condemnation of the regime grew,
the SLORC held on to power; becoming notorious for its brutal and repressive measures.
Despite this, the SLORC nevertheless appeared to accept an eventual return to democratic rule.
In 2003, it outlined a path to what it called disciplined democracy.
This was followed five years later
by a new constitution for the country - now officially called the Union of Myanmar.
Confirmed in the national referendum, this ensured that the military's effective
oversight of the country by guaranteeing it a quarter of the seats in the national parliament
and key positions in the government, including the ministries of defence and interior.
On 7 November, 2010 Burmese voters went to the polls for the first time in 30 years.
Crucially, however, the NLD was not on the ballot.
It chose not to contest the election after Suu Kyi was prevented from standing.
As a result, the elections were won by the Union Solidarity
and Development Part, the USDP, the military's party.
Even though the military had effectively held on to the reigns of power, the elections were
nevertheless viewed as an important step towards the country's democratic transition.
This was seemingly confirmed when, in 2015, the country held its next elections.
This time, the NLD stood and won a resounding victory;
taking control of both houses of the parliament.
Although prevented from assuming the role of president due to her marriage to a foreign
citizen, Aung San Suu Kyi assumed the role of state councillor; effectively prime minister.
By now, there was a sense that the country was slowly moving towards a more broadly
democratic system - albeit one in which the military still played a significant role
and against the backdrop of growing international condemnation of the country's human rights record.
To this extent, the country's most recent elections, held in November 2020,
was seen as a further step towards democratic consolidation.
So, why did the military take control this time?
The answer lies in the results of the November vote.
Yet again, the NLD won a major victory; increasing its share over the USDP.
Despite the presence of many international observers,
who stated that the elections were essentially free and fair, the USDP
contested the results; arguing that the vote was tainted by widespread fraud.
It called on the country's electoral commission to order a rerun.
It was when this was rejected that the military intervened.
Announcing a one-year state of emergency and handing power to the chief of the armed forces,
the military placed Aung San Suu Kyi and many of
the country's other political leaders under house arrest.
Obviously, this raises the question of what happens next.
In truth, it's hard to say.
Already, and despite warnings by the new military leaders,
there have been a number of protests in the country.
Internationally, there's also been widespread criticism.
The European Union, Britain and the United States, amongst others,
have condemned the coup in no uncertain terms and called on the country to return to democracy.
As the State Department noted, "we continue to stand with the people of Burma as we have
done for decades in their efforts to achieve democracy, freedom, peace and development."
As things stand, it seems that this will have little effect - at least in the short term.
The general view seems to be that, as it's now announced a year's state of emergency,
the military administration will now want to stick to this.
The real question is what happens after that.
As has been the case so often in the past,
the military is again promising to return to multi-party democracy.
But when will it happen and under what terms?
Going on past form, it could well be quite some time before we see new elections in Burma.
In recent decades, there's been a marked shift
away from countries under direct or even indirect military rule.
While at one time the intervention of the armed forces in politics was a fairly
regular occurrence around the world, it's becoming increasingly rare.
One country that seems to run against this is Burma - or Myanmar.
For much of its history, it's been a model example of a country run by the military.
Viewing itself as the guardian of the country's sovereignty and unity,
the armed forces came to dominate the state for most of the country's history;
with disastrous economic, political and social consequences.
That said, having become synonymous with military rule over a period of 50 years, Burma finally
appeared to have made slow but steady progress towards multi-party democracy since 2011.
And yet it now finds itself again under the direct control of the country's armed forces.
The question is whether the internal protest, coupled with external condemnation,
will see the country's new rulers lay out a road map for a return to some form of civilian rule.
Or whether the period of democracy the country enjoyed over the past decade,
as limited as it may have been in real terms, was simply the exception to the rule.
Whatever the answer, for now Burma is once again back
in what is now an extremely small club of countries under direct military rule.
I hope you found that interesting.
If so, here are some more videos you might find useful.
Thanks so much for watching and see you in the next video.