Freedom of Expression During Myanmar’s Revolution: The Gap Between Legal Provisions and Practice
Introduction
The military coup of 1 February 2021 marked a major turning point in Myanmar’s political and legal history. The military’s seizure of power constituted a blatant violation of Articles 417 and 4181 of the 2008 Constitution, which was in force at the time, with those entrusted with safeguarding the law instead breaching it. Consequently, on 31 March 2021, the Committee Representing the Pyidaungsu Hluttaw (CRPH)2 formally declared the complete abolition of the 2008 Constitution through Announcement No. 2/2021.
This decision also legally invalidated the military regime’s narrative that the 2021 coup was carried out in accordance with the Constitution. However, it simultaneously created a constitutional vacuum at the national level, leaving Myanmar without a governing constitution. To prevent the collapse of the rule of law and administrative mechanisms, and to establish the legal legitimacy of the revolution, it became urgently necessary to fill this vacuum.
In response to this need, revolutionary forces that emerged following the military coup issued the Federal Democracy Charter (FDC) on 31 March 2021. The Charter assumed the character of an interim constitutional framework, replacing the 2008 Constitution and serving as the highest legal framework during the revolutionary period. From 2023 onwards, revolutionary territories across Myanmar also began drafting and promulgating their own interim political arrangements. These developments began with the Interim Arrangements for Karenni State, followed by the Chinland Constitution, the Sagaing Federal Unit Interim Constitution, and the Mandalay Region Interim Political Plan, respectively.
These interim constitutional frameworks not only filled the legal gap left by the abolition of the 2008 Constitution, but also served as a foundational basis for establishing the legitimacy of the revolutionary forces and for building a future federal state. In particular, they function as a social contract between those who govern and those who are governed, aimed at protecting citizens’ rights.
Douglass C. North, a Nobel Prize–winning institutional economist, argues in his institutional theory3 that the principles applied in establishing a state’s foundational institutions play a decisive role in shaping its future political order. Accordingly, it becomes essential to examine how freedom of expression—one of the fundamental requirements of a democratic system—is incorporated into these foundational frameworks and the extent to which it is guaranteed, as they can serve as the critical veins of future federal units.
This study is a comparative analysis of how freedom of expression is placed in the Federal Democracy Charter and the interim legal frameworks enacted by three key revolutionary areas—Karenni State, Sagaing Region, and Mandalay Region—that emerged following the collapse of the 2008 Constitution. It comparatively examines how freedom of expression is addressed in papers and how it is practiced on the ground. This study furthermore identifies gaps between legal provisions and practical implementation, security-based restrictions, and self-censorship among the public.
Background
Freedom of expression is the foundation for a democratic society. It is explicitly recognised in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)4 and Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)5 Freedom of expression includes the right to hold opinions and ideas, to seek, receive, and impart information, and to express freely across media, artistic, educational, and digital domains.
According to Article 19(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), as interpreted by General Comment No. 346,any restriction on freedom of expression must meet the following criteria: (1) it must be provided by law; (2) it must pursue a legitimate reasons such as “(a) to respect the rights or reputation of others, and (b) to protect national security, public order, pulic health or morals”; and (3) it must be necessary and proportionate.
However, Myanmar’s current conflict context reveals clear gaps between these international standards and their implementation in practice. In particular, newly enacted interim political arrangements and legal frameworks either fail to recognise freedom of expression or recognise it while restricting it on vague or indeterminate grounds. Moreover, even though some legal provisions do not expressly impose limitations, freedom of expression is restricted in practice through local orders and directives, as well as through fear and rumours spread within communities.
The Federal Democracy Charter (FDC) serves as a central-level interim framework; however, in practice, administrative and judicial functions are governed by interim political arrangements adopted at the regional level. To examine variations in the challenges encountered in the exercise of freedom of expression, this study compares three regions that operate under differing administrative models.
Karenni State has a long-standing presence of Ethnic Revolutionary Organizations (EROs) and has established structured legislative and administrative mechanisms through the Interim Executive Council (IEC), operating in a state-level form of governance.
Sagaing Region has the most powerful armed resistance. However, rather than operating under a centralized command structure, it relies on township-level People’s Administrative Bodies and defense forces under collective leadership and local authority.
Mandalay Region still retains the influence of the military regime’s administrative mechanism, but revolutionary forces exercise parallel administrative and judicial functions through a combination of overt and clandestine means.
Examining how freedom of expression is affected across these diverse administrative and legal contexts can help identify policy strengths and weaknesses that should be taken into account in the construction of future federal units.
This study aims to examine the extent to which freedom of expression is protected under the legal frameworks and interim administrative mechanisms that emerged during Myanmar’s revolutionary period, and to analyse the restrictions and challenges encountered in practice on the ground.
This study is conducted with the following four objectives:
- To examine legal frameworks: To assess whether provisions related to freedom of expression in the Federal Democracy Charter and the interim political arrangements of Karenni State, Sagaing Region, and Mandalay Region are in line with international human rights standards.
- To identify practical conditions on the ground: To document and examine restrictions affecting the media and the public arising from claimed security concerns, local orders and directives, and armed conflict.
- To analyse gaps between law and practice: To conduct a comparative analysis of gaps between legal provisions on paper and their implementation in practice, as well as the key factors contributing to these gaps.
- To present policy recommendations: To put forward policy and procedural recommendations aimed at strengthening the protection of freedom of expression in the process of laying the foundations for a future federal democratic state, directed at the National Unity Government, federal units, civil society organisations, and other relevant stakeholders.