ABOUT the research Information Ecosystems under Military Rule Control and Propaganda Under a succession of brutal and secretive military regimes, Burma was rendered one of the most isolated countries in the world. With western sanctions in place, limited access for tourists and draconian restrictions on the activities of civil society and foreign NGOs, there were only narrow windows into the daily lives of Burmese and ethnic citizens. These were provided by Burmese and international pro-democracy and human rights activists and journalists operating covertly or cross-border to gather and disseminate to the world information on the state of the country. Villagers watching movies in video theater - Kyaikhto, Mokekamaw Village From Burma to Myanmar: Information Ecosystems at Work Until recently, few might have predicted the political, social and economic developments now taking place in Myanmar. For the first time in 50 years, Myanmar’s military has eased its total control of the state, allowing a quasi-civilian government and the participation of opposition political parties in parliament. Political prisoners have been released, ceasefire agreements signed with rebel ethnic groups, and media censorship has significantly eased. The recent quasi-democratization of the country has created rapidly intensifying interest from a multitude of actors (local and international) in engaging and communicating with Myanmar citizens. The reasons range from the drive to open commercial markets to the promotion of governance and social and economic development. This holds especially true for the remotest, least developed and chronically conflict-affected ethnic minority areas that will increasingly become the focus of interest for national and state government, the international development community, corporate investors and resource hungry opportunists of all stripes. Yet in a country where control and manipulation of information was for so many years a central and fundamentally twisted feature of the relationship between state and citizen, and between citizens themselves, no straightforward assumptions can (or should) be made about the ways in which people will access and utilize information in the rapidly morphing information ecosystems of the future. Amongst the litany of human rights abuses reported during these dark decades, there ran an important theme that is generally consistent across all despotic regimes, that of restrictions on access to and exchange of information amongst citizens. This was evidenced most clearly in the (now infamous) media regulatory environment that ensured state monopoly of broadcast media and entrenched tight control of print media through licensing and legal edicts hostile to the principles and practice of independent journalism. Burma languished for decades at the bottom of media freedom indexes.23 There exists a wealth of documentation on the suppression of media freedom and access to information in the country. All citizens, but especially those in the minority ethnic states, lived in fear of arbitrary 23 According to Freedom House, in 2013 Myanmar continued to be classified as “Not Free.” Since 2005, the Press Freedom score consistently rated in the mid to high 90’s, falling slightly in 2012 to 85 and 72 in 2013. “Freedom of the Press,” Freedom House. http://www.freedomhouse.org/report-types/freedom-press#.UzRDsK1dVk4 (August 12, 2014). 12 INFORMATION ECOSYSTEMS in transition: a case study from myanmar part one: rese arch findings arrest, torture, imprisonment or extra judicial killings for “crimes” of meeting, expressing opinions and imparting or exchanging news and information in any way. Newspaper editors played cat-and-mouse games with their censors on the Press Scrutiny Board, finding subtle and convoluted ways to signal resistance or insert sensitive topics into their articles, to the extent that generations of Burmese talk about their skill in “reading between the lines.” In parallel to strategies for information control, the regime in Burma devoted significant effort to disseminating propaganda not only through its broadcast channels and state newspapers but also on billboards in public places, at state events and other citizen gatherings across the country. The signature messages of the regime promoted the military as the protectors of the people and guardians of a “united Burma,” and warned against the toxic influences of foreigners and other agents of destabilization intent on tearing the nation apart. The overwrought and surreal style of the propaganda became something of a joke amongst educated pro-democracy Burmese and westerners (as North Korea’s propaganda is today). However, the message of the state and the army as a protector of the people against insidious foreign forces is one that has nationalistic resonance with Burmese going back to colonial times. While it is to be expected that this kind of propaganda would have had little traction in conflict-affected ethnic areas, it cannot be assumed that it was wholly ineffective, or even unwelcome to many Burmese who spent their whole lives without access to alternative information. For the purposes of understanding the significance of information ecosystems in Myanmar, it is important to note that draconian laws governing media access and press freedoms, and the heavyweight propaganda environment, were only a part of the country’s overall information ecosystem. Under notorious Military Intelligence Chief Khin Nyunt, the reach 13 how to inform, empower, and impact communities INFORMATION ECOSYSTEMS in transition: a case study from myanmar how to inform, empower, and impact communities PART ONE: RESEARCH FINDINGS