Myanmar’s 2021 coup: How military junta institutionalized autocracy through constitutional capture and civil war

Ethnic armed organizations (EAOs) like the Karen National Union (KNU) and Kachin Independence Army (KIA) have waged guerrilla wars against the Tatmadaw for decades, framing the 2021 coup as the latest iteration of Burma’s unresolved federalism crisis. Their resistance is rooted in pre-colonial traditions of autonomous governance, such as the Shan sawbwas or Mon city-states, which the junta’s 2008 constitution sought to erase. Indigenous knowledge systems, including rotational leadership and community-based justice, offer alternatives to military hierarchy but are systematically marginalized in national narratives.

The Tatmadaw’s 2021 power grab follows a century-long pattern of military intervention in Burmese politics, from British colonial divide-and-rule policies to the 1962 coup under Ne Win, which established the military’s ‘guardian’ role over the state. The 2008 constitution, drafted under junta supervision, institutionalized military impunity by reserving key ministries (Defense, Home Affairs, Border Affairs) for generals and barring civilian oversight. Parallels exist in Thailand’s 2014 coup, where the military justified intervention as ‘protecting the monarchy,’ and Indonesia’s 1965–66 massacres, where the army used anti-communism to eliminate rivals.

In Latin America, military coups often followed U.S.-backed ‘national security’ doctrines (e.g., 1973 Chile), while in Africa, post-colonial strongmen like Mobutu or Bokassa blended patrimonialism with Cold War proxy wars. Myanmar’s junta similarly leverages ‘stability’ rhetoric to justify repression, echoing Suharto’s New Order in Indonesia, where development was used to mask authoritarianism. The ASEAN bloc’s non-interference doctrine mirrors the Organization of African Unity’s (OAU) 1963 charter, prioritizing regional stability over human rights—a framework that has repeatedly failed to hold juntas accountable.

Political science research on authoritarian consolidation (e.g., Levitsky & Way’s ‘competitive authoritarianism’) explains how Myanmar’s junta uses elections, constitutional engineering, and controlled opposition to legitimize rule. Studies on civil-military relations (e.g., Samuel Huntington) highlight how military coups thrive in weak institutional contexts, where elites exploit ethnic divisions to justify centralization. Quantitative analyses of post-coup economies (e.g., World Bank data) show that sanctions often exacerbate civilian suffering while strengthening junta control over strategic sectors like jade and gas.

Burmese artists and monks have used traditional forms like *anyeint* (classical dance) and *thanaka* body art to critique the junta, with performances depicting military brutality as a violation of Buddhist *dhamma* (moral law). The 2021 Spring Revolution saw protest art blending pre-colonial *nat* spirit worship with modern graffiti, symbolizing resistance to both military rule and Western neocolonialism. Monastic networks, historically tied to ethnic resistance (e.g., U Ottama’s anti-colonial activism), continue to shelter dissidents, framing the struggle as a spiritual as well as political one.

Scenario modeling suggests Myanmar’s junta will either fragment into warlordism (like post-Soviet Afghanistan) or evolve into a hybrid regime (like Vietnam’s ‘market Leninism’) if ASEAN and China continue enabling its survival. A federal democratic transition would require dismantling the 2008 constitution, disarming militias, and redistributing resource wealth—processes akin to South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission but complicated by China’s Belt and Road investments. Climate change (e.g., salinization in the Irrawaddy Delta) could exacerbate conflicts over land and water, further destabilizing the region.

Rohingya survivors in Bangladesh refugee camps describe systematic rape, arson, and forced displacement as tools of ethnic cleansing, with the junta framing their actions as ‘counterterrorism’ against the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA). Ethnic Chin and Karen women’s groups report gender-based violence as a weapon of war, with military impunity enabling systematic abuse. Pro-democracy activists in exile (e.g., *Spring Revolution* organizers) argue that international aid often bypasses local resistance networks, reinforcing top-down dependency rather than grassroots empowerment.