3/24/26, 1:25 PM Five Years After Coup, Myanmar’s Digital Authoritarianism Enters New Phase | TechPolicy.Press The import of such digital authoritarian technology enabled by legal loopholes in both national and international regulations has strengthened the military regime and deepened its technological sophistication amid shifting geopolitical dynamics. The transfer was reportedly carried out through complex international supply chains. The regime has shifted from relying only on traditional intelligence networks to adopting imported digital systems and infrastructure. Myanmar stands as a cautionary example and testing ground for how digital authoritarianism can be strengthened through the transfer of technical capacity through authoritarian alliances and the apathy of the international community. Sham elections are not a democratic reset The military recently held a month-long national election, conducted in three phases from 28 December 2025 to 25 January 2026, widely regarded as a sham election. Before, during, and after the process, the regime systematically violated digital and civil freedoms, making free and fair elections impossible. Airstrikes continued in townships even as voting was underway. The United Nations reported that at least 170 people were killed with 408 military aerial attacks recorded between December 2025 and the final round of voting. Despite international condemnation and boycott calls, reported turnout exceeded 50 percent, likely driven in part by fear of repercussions for nonparticipation. In December, 2025, under a new law criminalizing actions deemed to undermine the election, the military announced the arrest of more than 200 people for alleged “sabotage” of the election process, many for social media posts opposing the vote. Sham elections do not represent a democratic reset or meaningful transformation. Portraying it as a pathway to stability is dangerously misleading. Endorsing or engaging with it risks securing long-term legitimacy for the military, including its use of technology to silence dissent, manipulate information, and force people to give votes. Myanmar’s revolution has not ended. Democracy cannot be restored while surveillance replaces accountability, fear suppresses free expression, and technology is used to threaten civilians rather than enable civil participation and empower people. As the military seeks international legitimacy through this electoral process, greater global scrutiny is urgently needed. The past five years since the coup have shown enough the consequences and deepening humanitarian crisis. This is a critical moment for international attention, not indifference. A call for regional and global action As Myanmar’s resistance enters its sixth year, the crisis carries both regional and global implications. The country has become a testing ground for digital authoritarianism globally. The military’s reliance on imported sophisticated technologies illustrates how authoritarian regimes learn from one another, reinforce repressive practices, and build interconnected systems of control. At the regional level, this is a critical mission for ASEAN in implementing a Myanmar-led solution to the crisis. The Five-Point Consensus, adopted in April 2021 in response to the Myanmar military, has failed. Although ASEAN has not recognized the military’s elections, the regional bloc with 11 member states remains divided. Meanwhile, big companies across the ASEAN region and beyond continue to do business with the military, providing a significant source of funds, equipment, and technology. The Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar called on states to focus on cutting the flow of weapons, aviation fuel, and funds that enable the military’s campaign of violence and repression. If the Myanmar military’s digital authoritarianism is allowed to persist unchecked and gain international recognition, it will send a dangerous signal: that governments can dismantle fundamental rights and still be treated as legitimate actors. The international community should respond with principled and coordinated action. This means resisting the normalization of technologyenabled repression in Myanmar and refusing to legitimize the results of sham elections or fraudulent political processes. Governments and private companies that enable these systems — through financing, technological support, political endorsement, or silence — should be held accountable. International partners should also strengthen coordinated mechanisms to resist the military’s expanding digital repression and invest in technologies that help people in Myanmar circumvent censorship, counter internet shutdowns, and sustain independent information ecosystems. Resisting digital authoritarianism in Myanmar is not only a strategic necessity — it is a moral obligation. The future of digital freedom, democratic governance, and human rights in the region and beyond depends on it. https://www.techpolicy.press/five-years-after-coup-myanmars-digital-authoritarianism-enters-new-phase/ 3/4