Previous 25 / 43 Next

Freedom of Expression During Myanmar’s Revolution: The Gap Between Legal Provisions and Practice NUG-controlled areas, there were concerns. We were not allowed to film videos or take photographs for our reporting. I have personally encountered situations where access was denied on the grounds that airstrikes might occur,”20 he said. Based on justifications for airstrikes and military security concerns, authorities have not only restricted freedom of expression, the right to access information, and the right to report news, but have also frequently blocked Starlink internet services, a key means of accessing information.21 In addition, there have been cases in which criticism of local administrative bodies or revolutionary forces has been deemed a potential threat to security, leading to demands to remove social media posts and, in some cases, warnings. “There was a case where the public protested against a person involved in the judiciary sector because they no longer trusted him. Someone posted on social media that people were protesting against him because they did not accept such individuals. That post was then labelled as ‘damaging his reputation,’ and the person who posted it was immediately arrested. After the arrest, there was no information about the charges, where the person was being held, how they were being detained, or whether any order had been issued. In this case, individuals part of the justice sector themselves violated a person’s freedom of expression by carrying out the arrest,”22 said a political activist from Sagaing region. In addition, this report finds that freedom of expression is not restricted by laws or formal orders issued by local authorities, but rather by self-censorship, in which individuals choose not to exercise their freedom of expression for their own safety. This phenomenon is driven not only by personal security concerns but also by social pressures within local communities. 20 A journalist from Sagaing Region https://www.ludunwayoo.com/news-mm/2025/12/21/143372/ 22 An activist from Sagaing Region 21 23

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Freedom of Expression During Myanmar’s Revolution : The Gap Between Legal Provisions and Practice

Report

Preview

Language

Burmese
English

Topic

Information Operation
Military Coup

Author(s)

Athan

Date Published: Feb 17, 2026

Abstract: he 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.

Link: source

Primary Documents

FoE-During-Myanmars-Revolution_Athan_Feb-2026_ENG-1.pdf
English
Download View
FoE-During-Myanmars-Revolution_Athan_Feb-2026_MMR-1.pdf
Burmese
Download View

Myanmar Internet Project

Select target paragraph3

Freedom of Expression During Myanmar’s Revolution : The Gap Between Legal Provisions and Practice

Primary Documents

Notifications