Previous 31 / 43 Next

Freedom of Expression During Myanmar’s Revolution: The Gap Between Legal Provisions and Practice 6. Comparative Analysis and Discussion This chapter comparatively examines how freedom of expression is recognized, what restrictions are imposed and how these provisions are implemented in practice; in the Federal Democracy Charter of the National Unity Consultative Council, the Karenni State Interim Arrangements, the Sagaing Federal Unit Interim Constitution, and the Mandalay Region Interim Political Plan; what restrictions are imposed; and how these provisions are implemented in practice. Although all the charters, provisions, and legal frameworks presented in this study recognise freedom of expression in one form or another as a fundamental right, significant differences are evident at the level of practical protection and implementation on the ground. 6.1 Patterns of Restrictions – The Conflation of Individual Freedom with Collective Right Reviewing these constitutional and interim legal documents reveals that the Sagaing and Mandalay interim arrangements explicitly recognise freedom of expression as an individual civil liberty. However, in the Federal Democracy Charter and the Karenni State Interim Arrangements, freedom of expression is embedded within collective cultural rights. The Mandalay and Sagaing interim arrangements and constitution explicitly guarantee “freedom of expression, freedom of publication, the right to access information, and the right to disseminate information.” Furthermore, the Sagaing Federal Unit Interim Constitution includes a distinct Right to Information provision that allows citizens to request records from the government. These documents treat freedom of expression as a standalone civil liberty of citizens. However, the scope and boundaries of these rights are not clearly defined. Instead, broad, general terminology is used, resulting in uncertainty and complexity. 29

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