Previous 3 / 43 Next

Table of Contents 1. Introduction....................................................................................................................................... 3 2. Background........................................................................................................................ 5 2.1 Freedom of Expression in International Human Rights Standards.............................. 5 2.2 Administrative and Legal Frameworks During Myanmar’s Revolution......................... 6 2.3 Objectives.....................................................................................................................7 3. Research Methodology......................................................................................................8 3.1 Data Collection............................................................................................................. 8 3.2 Data Analysis............................................................................................................. 10 3.3 Ethical Considerations................................................................................................11 4. Limitations and Challenges............................................................................................ 12 5. Findings by Region.......................................................................................................... 14 5.1 Federal Democracy Charter (FDC): Foundational Normative Baseline................................... 14 5.1.1 Conceptual Recognition of Freedom of Expression with Limited Guarantees.. 14 5.1.2 Prioritizing Collective Rights over Individual Freedom...................................... 14 5.1.3 General Alignment with International Standards but Lack of Clarity in Articulating Rights. 15 5.1.4 Restrictions on Freedom of Expression Based on Security Justifications...................... 16 5.1.5 Analysis............................................................................................................. 17 5.2 Interim Arrangements of Karenni State...................................................................... 18 5.2.1 International Standards Referenced Only in General Terms.......................................... 18 5.2.2 Restriction of Freedom of Expression Based on Security Justifications......................... 19 5.2.3 Gaps between Legal Frameworks and On-the-Ground Practice.................................... 20 5.3 Sagaing Federal Unit Interim Constitution..................................................................21 5.3.1 Legal Recognition of Freedom of Expression and the Lack of Clarity in Restrictions.....21 5.3.2 Restricting Freedom of Expression through Security Justification..................................22 5.3.3 Gaps between Legal Frameworks and On-the-Ground Practice...................... 24 5.4 Mandalay Region Interim Political Plan......................................................................25 5.4.1 Legal Recognition of Freedom of Expression and Ethics-Based Restrictions................ 26 5.4.2 Security Justifications and Self-Censorship...................................................... 26 5.4.3 Gaps between Legal Frameworks and On-the-Ground Practice...................... 28 6. Comparative Analysis and Discussion............................................................................... 29 6.1 Patterns of Restrictions – The Conflation of Individual Freedom with Collective Right............ 29 6.2 Re-imposed Restrictions and the Tension Between Security and Freedom............................ 30 6.3 Weak Participation of Stakeholders in Constitutional Processes............................................. 33 6.4. Reasons for Limited Participation and Structural Constraints................................................. 36 7. Recommendations............................................................................................................. 38 7.1 For the National Unity Government (NUG) and Federal Units................................................. 38 7.2. For Regional Military and Administrative Leaders................................................................... 38 7.3 For Civil Society and Media Organisations.............................................................................. 39 References...........................................................................................................................................41

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