Previous 29 / 43 Next

Freedom of Expression During Myanmar’s Revolution: The Gap Between Legal Provisions and Practice become the primary justification for restricting freedom of expression. Local defence forces and administrative bodies impose internet and Wi-Fi shutdowns or restrictions out of concern that information about military operations may be leaked. For example, in some townships controlled by the Mandalay PDF Force, such as Singu Township has regulations governing the use of Starlink internet services; violations were reportedly subject to fines or the confiscation of Starlink devices in 202529. While authorities stated such measures are necessary for military strategies30, they constitute direct restrictions on the public’s access to information and freedom of expression. Responsible actors on the ground have also acknowledged such security-driven strictness.31 One participant, who was involved in drafting the constitution and took part in a focus group discussion commented on the current situation as follows: “Given the realities on the ground and the need to protect lives, I think some governing and managing decisions have been taken harshly.”32 When considering such statements alongside on-the-ground cases, internet shutdowns are often justified as military necessities, while simultaneously constituting direct restrictions on the public’s access to information and freedom of expression. As in other regions examined in this study, self-censorship for security reasons is common in Mandalay Region. Because Mandalay is located close to urban areas under the strong control of military regime, residents are often required to travel for livelihoods, healthcare, and other social needs. In such circumstances, many choose silence and refrain from expressing criticism or political views in order to protect their personal safety. In particular, the risk of arrest during mobile phone inspections at military checkpoints has led individuals to take precautionary measures, such as 29 https://www.bbc.com/burmese/articles/c0ex8xr5yp7o https://burmese.dvb.no/post/681989 31 https://burmese.dvb.no/post/681989 32 A participant of Focus Group Discussion who involved in drafting the arrangement 30 27

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