Previous 22 / 43 Next

Freedom of Expression During Myanmar’s Revolution: The Gap Between Legal Provisions and Practice On 16 April 2024, the Karenni State Interim Executive Council issued a directive15 on media ethics stating that the council will not control journalists and that journalists are free to gather and report news. However, the directive prohibits journalists from engaging in activities that could harm the military operations and administrative matters of Karenni State. The directive fails to define “harmful activities”. In addition, similar to conditions in other areas under the National Unity Government, instances of self-censorship, in which individuals choose not to exercise freedom of expression for personal safety reasons, have also been observed. These practices are not primarily the result of legal controls imposed by authorities, but rather arise from social pressures within local communities. A Karenni-based journalist noted that “If you speak up or express your own thoughts and opinions, there will always be people who disagree with you. Even though this is a liberated area, there are many different groups and individuals here who could come and harm you for that.”16 While such restrictions may be permissible under international human rights standards in emergency situations, in the context of the Karenni State, they have not been defined or regulated within a systematic legal framework. As a result, these measures have harmed the practical exercise of freedom of expression. In addition, social pressures and the perception that “remaining silent is safer” have contributed to an increase in self-censorship. 5.2.3 Gaps between Legal Frameworks and On-the-Ground Practice In summary, the Karenni State interim arrangements include freedom of expression only within general human rights principles and do not guarantee it as an individual right. Moreover, legal protection of freedom of expression has been weakened in practice due to security justifications. The regulation of journalists’ access to information through administrative directives highlights the absence of effective guarantees for news gathering and reporting. 15 16 Karenni State Interim Administration Council. 2024. Directive No. 08/2024. A journalist from Karenni State 20

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