Booting out partial democracy

Context: On February 1, the Myanmar army seized power, turning a partial democracy into a full-fledged military rule.

Background:

This creates a perception of déjà vu as one recalls 1962, 1988 and 1990, the milestone years when the generals took similar drastic actions to overthrow a democratic government or derail people’s expressed preferences.
Between March 2016 and January 2021, the National League for Democracy (NLD) led by Aung San Suu Kyi shared power with the military.
This was a bold experiment to govern an intensely complex nation in Southeast Asia. Myanmar thus became a car driven by two drivers.

Emergency or coup?

To explain the military’s actions, its spokesman pointed out that there was “terrible fraud in the voter list” in the parliamentary elections held in November 2020, and that the Election Commission “failed to settle the matter.”
Claiming that this development would “obstruct the path to democracy”, the army declared an emergency, transferring all powers to Commander-in-Chief Min Aung Hlaing.
The decision seems questionable on legal and constitutional grounds.
First, electoral issues need to be addressed and resolved by relevant authorities, not the military leadership.
Second, Article 417 of the Constitution empowers the President to proclaim emergency, in consultation with the National Defence and Security Council. It does not seem that the Council met or presidential consent was obtained.
But it is a coup with a difference: the party wielding half of the power decided to help itself with the other half too, regardless of the law or consequences.

Fault Lines:

First, ideologically the two segments of the political elite have been at war with each other.
The army has a sense of entitlement to power on the grounds that it secured independence, defended the country against secession, and ensured stability and development. It views itself as the guardian of the state.
NLD leader Ms. Suu Kyi, the other protagonist, has always expressed admiration for the army, but she has been a staunch advocate of democracy, a system in which the army should be completely apolitical.
Specifically, the two sides have had modest to serious differences over ethnic reconciliation, constitutional reform, the Rohingya issue, and the China policy.
Second, in political terms the fight is for power. The army has been used to exercising power for long, which yields it immense economic dividends too. Playing second fiddle to democratically elected leaders was a difficult role for it.
Third, presidential ambitions and the future of Senior General Min Aung Hlaing’s career constitute a relevant issue.
The military leadership understands the people’s psyche well. The divide between the Burmans, the majority group, and the ethnic minorities remains wide. The latter are generally opposed to a strong Central government.

Policy of non-interference

Many worry how India, the world’s largest democracy, should cope with the forcible overthrow of democracy in a neighbouring country.
Institutional memories and experiences are helpful. Whenever democracy suffers, India feels concerned, even anguished.
But the government is committed to the policy of non-interference in another state’s internal affairs. It is also guided by the national interest.
Therefore, in managing relations with Myanmar, India will astutely balance its principles, values, interests and geopolitical realities.
The visit to Myanmar last October by Foreign Secretary Harsh Vardhan Shringla and Chief of Army Staff M.M. Naravane was an unmistakable sign that New Delhi fully understood where power lay in Naypyidaw.

Daily News Analysis