Silenced Voices under Turmoil: Assessing Freedom of Expression and Accountability of Revolutionary Authorities and Resistance Forces
Executive Summary
More than five years after the 2021 military coup, revolutionary armed groups and ethnic armed organizations have gained control over many parts of Myanmar. In territories under their control, these groups have also taken on responsibilities for governance, judicial affairs, economic management, and public services. This study examines the extent to which freedom of expression can be exercised in these controlled territories, the challenges faced by critics, journalists, and those documenting human rights violations, and the degree of responsibility, accountability, and transparency among the authorities. Based on interviews with six participants and four case studies, the research does not seek to generalize its findings across all resistance-controlled territories. Rather, it aims to identify recurring patterns within the cases examined.
Research Methodology
This study adopts a qualitative research approach. Six participants, including two journalists, one researcher specializing in freedom of expression issues, one activist, and two individuals involved in local administration (three men and three women), were interviewed securely through Zoom and Signal. The information gathered was cross-checked against policies and statements issued by local authorities, as well as media reports. In addition, four case studies were examined in detail.
- The arrest and detention by the Kachin Independence Army (KIA) of local residents protesting rare earth mining in Chipwi Township, Kachin State (2024).
- The arrest of a female member of the People’s Defence Force (PDF) who spoke out about gender-based violence allegedly committed by a battalion commander in Yinmabin District, Sagaing Region (2025).
- Restrictions on Starlink internet access and the imposition of fines in Singu Township, Mandalay Region (2025).
- The arrests of journalists by armed groups in Kachin State, Rakhine State, and Mandalay Region.
Key Findings
(1) Two Forms of Repression
Revolutionary armed groups have employed two forms of repression in response to criticism. The first is repression carried out through formal administrative structures, including the issuance of orders and restrictions, as well as the arrest and detention of journalists. The second involves repression outside these formal structures, including threats, online attacks, the exposure of personal information, and social pressure stemming from fears of being accused of acting as a military informant (dalan). One journalist interviewed for this study also reported experiencing severe forms of torture while in detention, including beatings and being hooded and restrained.
(2) Justifications
The most common justifications used to suppress criticism include claims that it undermines the revolution, benefits the enemy, or poses a threat to military security. Rather than examining the factual accuracy of the criticism, these justifications are used to target and attack the critics themselves.
(3) Weak Accountability
Most resistance-controlled territories still lack clear mechanisms through which residents can file complaints. Although the National Unity Government (NUG) has established a committee to receive complaints, its mechanisms have not yet reached local communities of those controlled territories. Most local administrative officials are appointed by higher authorities rather than elected by the public, contributing to a weak sense of accountability to the people they govern.
(4) Natural Resource Management
Those demanding transparency in mining activities, taxation, and the use of revenues primarily face arrests and threats. The financial needs of military operations are being prioritized over the voices of local communities.
(5) Digital Freedom
Restrictions on Starlink internet access, mandatory user registration, and fines of up to two million kyat have been imposed on security grounds. These measures affect not only local residents’ right to access information but also their safety and right to life when fleeing armed conflict. Such practices also resemble the military’s methods of digital surveillance and control.
Conclusion
The cases examined in this study indicate that while revolutionary groups have embraced democracy and human rights at the policy level, in practice, they have restricted people’s freedom of expression on the grounds of military necessity, security, and the revolution itself. Unless this gap between policy and practice is addressed, there is a risk of authoritarian contagion, in which revolutionary forces adopt the very authoritarian practices they are fighting against. This could undermine the foundations of a future federal democratic state. These findings do not suggest that the violations committed by revolutionary forces are comparable to those committed by the military responsible for the coup, either in scale or in their systematic nature. Rather, this study seeks to emphasize that revolutionary forces have a responsibility to act in accordance with the values they seek to defend.
Key Recommendations
- Introduce mandatory training on codes of conduct concerning human rights and freedom of expression for members of revolutionary armed forces and local administrative personnel.
- Establish secure and anonymous complaint mechanisms for local residents and take legal action against perpetrators, regardless of their position or affiliation.
- Develop systematic policies and electoral mechanisms to return local governing authority to the people.
- Ensure that decisions concerning internet access and natural resource management are made through tripartite committees that include representatives of local communities.
- Recognize the media’s role as a watchdog and ease restrictions on access to information.
- Regularly disclose revenues and expenditures from natural resources and provide legal protection for those dem
Chapter 1
Introduction and Background
In response to the 2021 military coup and the subsequent repression by the Myanmar military, revolutionary forces, ethnic armed organizations, and political groups joined forces to resist military dictatorship. As these resistance movements gained territorial control, they began establishing various forms of public administration across different parts of Myanmar. In addition to resisting violence and repression by the Myanmar military, these administrative bodies have also taken on responsibilities for maintaining the rule of law, providing public services, managing local economies, and carrying out other administrative functions within their territories. This study primarily seeks to examine the space for freedom of expression within these governance structures and the extent to which it is permitted or restricted.
During the armed resistance against the Myanmar military’s widespread repression, freedom of expression remains both an essential right and one that can easily be sidelined at any time. There have been instances in which some revolutionary leaders have suppressed criticism in the name of the revolution or unity. A central focus of this study is therefore to examine whether these administrative structures have mechanisms and provisions that allow those demanding accountability, documenting human rights violations, questioning the limits of governing authorities’ powers, and other critics and journalists to carry out their work and make their voices heard.
1.1. Research Objectives and Questions
This study seeks to address the following research questions:
- During the ongoing political crisis, to what extent do responsibility, accountability, and transparency exist within revolutionary governments and resistance forces in their responses to criticism directed at them? What formal and informal forms of repression do they employ to restrict or suppress freedom of expression?
- What justifications are used to legitimize these restrictions, and do they meet the standards of necessity and proportionality?
1.2. Scope and Definitions
This study focuses primarily on the actions of revolutionary armed groups and local authorities rather than violations committed by the military junta. The report does not dispute that the junta’s violations are far greater in scale and more systematic in nature. Examining the accountability of resistance forces is not intended to equate them with the military junta, but rather to assess whether their actions align with the values they seek to defend.
For the purposes of this report, freedom of expression encompasses the right to express opinions and criticism, the right to seek, receive, and impart information, freedom of the press, and the right to communicate in digital spaces. Definitions of other terms are provided in the Glossary.