Previous 37 / 43 Next

Freedom of Expression During Myanmar’s Revolution: The Gap Between Legal Provisions and Practice An IPCM member confirmed, “There was no consultation with the IPCM (Independent Press Council of Myanmar), nor were there any requests for recommendations or comments.”43 “When laws and policies were drafted, as far as I know, women's organizations, political institutions, and armed groups were invited to discuss. But journalists like us were outsiders, such as civilians. So in those kinds of processes, I would have to say that we did not know about them,”44 said a journalist from Karenni State. According to data from the focus group discussions, journalists and media organizations were viewed not as participating actors but only as a fourth pillar responsible for oversight. As a result, when laws intended to regulate them were drafted, they themselves were excluded from the process. A participant who provided technical support and took part in the discussions said, “When considering representation in the interim arrangements, the media were somewhat difficult to place. Because they are described as the fourth pillar, they were not counted within the interim arrangements. The structure focused only on the three main pillars, and in most cases, media organizations were not included. For that reason, even CSO representation became somewhat complicated in these interim arrangements. From which position should we speak? We could only speak in terms of principles. However, when it came to institutionalising and governing the structure through executive, legislative, and judicial pillars, the mechanisms did not clearly define where CSOs or other groups, such as strike committees, would fit. At most, they could participate at the highest level within the consultative council.”45 Although it was stated that public feedback was collected through Telegram, Signal, and email during the drafting of the Mandalay Region Interim Political Plan, this process was limited to passive participation (submission-based input) rather than 43 A member of Independent Myanmar Press Council who participated in the research interview A journalist from Karenni State 45 A participant of Focus Group Discussion who involved in drafting the arrangement 44 35

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