Burma's Transition to "Disciplined Democracy": Abdication or Institutionalization of Military Rule?

Direct military rule has become rare in world politics. Today, most military regimes have either given way to some form of democracy or been transformed into another form of authoritarianism. This article formulates an analytical framework for the detachment of militaries from politics and identifies positive and negative factors for a withdrawal. It then applies this framework to the case of Burma/Myanmar, which is an example of deeply entrenched military rule. It is argued that the retreat from direct rule has brought with it a further institutionalization of military rule in politics, since the military was able to safeguard its interests and design the new electoral authoritarian regime according to its own purposes. The article identifies the internal dynamics within the military regime as a prime motive for a reform of the military regime. Although the external environment has completely changed over the last two decades, this had only a minor impact on military politics. The opposition could not profit from the regime’s factionalization and external sanctions and pressure have been undermined by Asian engagement.military regime, civilian control, external influences, internal influences, competitive authoritarianism, Burma/Myanmar

Perilous Presidentialism or Precarious Power-Sharing? Hybrid Regime Dynamics in Myanmar

Although Myanmar's transition from military rule has been thoroughly studied, research into the evolving presidential system is lacking. This article maps Myanmar's unique hybrid form of presidentialism and characterises executive-legislative relations between 2012 and 2017. It not only examines institutions themselves but also explores how actors within them have acted and shifted strategically. It is argued that elite-behaviour determines how institutions work. Myanmar's 2008 constitution imposed by the military established a hybrid presidential system with a formally powerful president. The first phase under President Thein Sein saw competitive yet cooperative executive-legislative relations between President Thein Sein and the ambitious House Speaker Shwe Mann, both members of the former military regime. However, this power-sharing arrangement of former members of the military regime became increasingly fragile with the rise of Aung San Suu Kyi and her attempt to change the 2008 constitution. After the election victory of the National League for Democracy (NLD) and the passage of the state counsellor law, a de facto semi-presidential system was established – Burmese style. Since then, the frontline has been between the civilian and military parts of the administration

On the Road to Democracy? Political Liberalization in Myanmar. Asia Policy Brief 2014/01, January 2014

Myanmar’s liberalizing reforms initiated by President Thein Sein after taking office in March 2011 are raising high hopes of peace and democracy in the country. Progress, after nearly three years, has however been uneven: there have been positive developments in the area of press freedom, with regard to political prisoners and in dealing with the political opposition. At the same time the dialogue with ethnic groups has stagnated and ethnic and religious violence has escalated. This Asia Policy Brief critically assesses the reform policy and weighs up the chances of democratization of the long-time military regime

Myanmar: the beginning of reforms and the end of sanctions

On 23 April 2012, the European Union (EU) suspended its sanctions against Burma/ Myanmar in response to a series of domestic political reforms that have been enacted since Thein Sein became the new president in March 2011. Since March 2011, Burma/ Myanmar has witnessed a liberalization of the press, the release of political prisoners and the initiation of a political dialogue between the regime on the one hand and the opposition and ethnic groups on the other. The reforms culminated in by-elections on 1 April 2012, which in turn resulted in a landslide victory for Aung San Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy (NLD). Overall, political reforms in Burma/ Myanmar are being initiated from "above." They are elite-driven and stem from the president and progressive members of the military-dominated party, the Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP). Political reforms in Myanmar are a regime reaction to both internal and external factors. Internally, the military felt secure enough to embark on the slow liberalization of the political system. Externally, the growing economic presence of China seems to have worried the generals. Progress is, however, slow, uneven and very fragile. Hard-liners within the regime still threaten the reform process. Moreover, the influence of the military within the political system and the economy is still pervasive. The EU has responded to the reforms by suspending almost all existing sanctions, with the exception of the arms embargo and the withdrawal of trade preferences, while starting to employ "carrots" such as development aid. By EU standards, agreement on the suspension of the virtual entirety of sanctions has been reached remarkably swiftly. The exclusion of the arms embargo from the suspension reflects the EU’s policies on armaments supply. The resumption of trade preferences will require a separate, lengthier legal process

Myanmar: the beginning of reforms and the end of sanctions

On 23 April 2012, the European Union (EU) suspended its sanctions against Burma/ Myanmar in response to a series of domestic political reforms that have been enacted since Thein Sein became the new president in March 2011. Since March 2011, Burma/ Myanmar has witnessed a liberalization of the press, the release of political prisoners and the initiation of a political dialogue between the regime on the one hand and the opposition and ethnic groups on the other. The reforms culminated in by-elections on 1 April 2012, which in turn resulted in a landslide victory for Aung San Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy (NLD). Overall, political reforms in Burma/ Myanmar are being initiated from "above." They are elite-driven and stem from the president and progressive members of the military-dominated party, the Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP). Political reforms in Myanmar are a regime reaction to both internal and external factors. Internally, the military felt secure enough to embark on the slow liberalization of the political system. Externally, the growing economic presence of China seems to have worried the generals. Progress is, however, slow, uneven and very fragile. Hard-liners within the regime still threaten the reform process. Moreover, the influence of the military within the political system and the economy is still pervasive. The EU has responded to the reforms by suspending almost all existing sanctions, with the exception of the arms embargo and the withdrawal of trade preferences, while starting to employ "carrots" such as development aid. By EU standards, agreement on the suspension of the virtual entirety of sanctions has been reached remarkably swiftly. The exclusion of the arms embargo from the suspension reflects the EU’s policies on armaments supply. The resumption of trade preferences will require a separate, lengthier legal process

Die Wiedergeburt der Demokratiebewegung in Thailand: Thaksins Populismus in der Krise

"Seit Herbst letzten Jahres kommt es in Bangkok regelmäßig zu Protestkundgebungen, an denen sich bis zu 100.000 Menschen beteiligen. Sie fordern den Rücktritt von Premierminister Thaksin. Um die Legitimität seiner Regierung neu zu untermauern, hat dieser für Anfang April Neuwahlen angesetzt. Die Enthüllung von Korruptionsfällen und die Vermischung wirtschaftlicher und politischer Interessen haben der Legitimität der Regierung Thaksin in Teilen der thailändischen Funktionselite und der städtischen Bevölkerung Bangkoks schweren Schaden zugefügt. Nach umstrittenen ökonomischen Transaktionen Thaksins hat sich eine heterogene Protestbewegung geformt, die den Rücktritt des Premierministers und politische Reformen verlangt. Der in der ländlichen Bevölkerung beliebte Thaksin weigert sich bislang zurückzutreten. Die Proteste offenbaren eine tiefe Spaltung zwischen der ländlichen und der städtischen Bevölkerung Thailands. Der Grund dafür liegt in der großzügigen Förderung der ländlichen Regionen durch Thaksins Regierung. Bei den Gegnern Thaksins handelt es sich um ein breites Sammelbecken zivilgesellschaftlicher Gruppen, deren gemeinsames Ziel darin besteht, den Premierminister zu stürzen. Dieser lehnt einen Rücktritt jedoch ab, weil er sich durch den Wahlsieg im Februar 2005 hinreichend legitimiert sieht. Mit der zunehmenden Polarisierung der Gesellschaft wächst die Gefahr eines militärischen Eingreifens. Dies dürfte aber nur dann geschehen, wenn der Konflikt zwischen Regierung und Demokratiebewegung gewalttätig eskaliert." (Autorenreferat