Myanmar’s political path has been marked by repeated cycles of democratic openings followed by military intervention. Every time civilian governments gain ground, the armed forces, known as the Tatmadaw, step back in to reclaim authority. This cycle has shaped the nation’s governance for decades and remains one of the central challenges in its modern history.
To understand why the Tatmadaw continues to dominate, we must look back at its origins and the conditions that allowed it to assume such a powerful role. The roots of military influence lie in the early years after independence, when fragile institutions and internal conflicts created space for the armed forces to present themselves as the only reliable guardian of national unity.
That early role became not just a political function but also a narrative the military continues to promote. Over time, it was reinforced through constitutional design, institutional control, and repeated justifications of national security. Together, these elements explain why civilian administrations in Myanmar have never been able to fully consolidate power.
Historical Roots of Military Authority
When Myanmar achieved independence from Britain in 1948, the new nation faced immediate challenges. Ethnic armed movements and communist insurgencies weakened the government and fueled instability. Civilian leaders lacked the resources to maintain control. In this environment, the military, shaped by the independence struggle and associated with national hero General Aung San, was viewed as the only force capable of holding the state together.
This perception became the foundation of the Tatmadaw’s enduring role. In 1962, General Ne Win staged a coup, framing it as an act to prevent fragmentation and preserve unity. From that point onward, the military claimed not just political authority but a permanent identity as protector of the nation. This identity was passed from one generation of military leaders to the next and has shaped their vision of governance ever since.
The Constitution as a Safeguard of Power
When limited political reforms began in the 2010s, the military ensured that its dominance was legally protected. The 2008 constitution, drafted under its supervision, gave the Tatmadaw lasting authority. One of its most significant features is the reservation of a quarter of parliamentary seats for unelected officers. This arrangement grants the military an automatic veto over constitutional amendments.
The constitution also places key ministries (Defense, Home Affairs, and Border Affairs) under the commander-in-chief, not the civilian government. This control extends to the police, intelligence, and border security, leaving elected leaders unable to act independently on matters of national security. In addition, the text provides emergency powers that allow the armed forces to step in during crises. Through these provisions, the military positioned itself as the ultimate decision-maker even during periods of civilian government.
The 2021 Coup and Its Impact
The 2020 general election delivered a decisive victory for the National League for Democracy under Aung San Suu Kyi. The result signaled strong popular support for democratic governance. The military, however, contested the outcome, alleging irregularities without presenting clear evidence. On 1 February 2021, it launched another coup, detaining political leaders and resuming full control of the state.
This action highlighted the Tatmadaw’s reluctance to accept limits on its authority. It was also a defense of its institutional and economic interests. Yet, unlike earlier periods of military rule, the coup triggered strong public resistance. A new generation of citizens, more politically aware and connected through technology, responded with widespread protests and calls for change.
Why the Cycle Persists
The Tatmadaw’s continued dominance rests on three overlapping factors. First, it draws on historical legitimacy rooted in its role in the independence struggle. Second, it benefits from legal protections enshrined in the 2008 constitution, which limit the power of elected governments. Third, it controls security forces and major economic assets, ensuring practical leverage that no civilian administration can easily overcome.
