Myanmar Spring Chronicle – Scenes from March 26
(MoeMaKa), March 27, 2026
Myanmar Elections: From 20 Years After ’88 to Just 5 Years After the Spring Revolution
In 1988, a nationwide popular uprising erupted—widely known as the ’88 Uprising. As a result of that large-scale nonviolent mass movement, the military regime was compelled to hold a general election in 1990. That election is often described as a multiparty democratic election.
During the period of mass protests and civil disobedience, tens of thousands of people—including Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and U Win Tin—were subjected to house arrest, imprisonment, and various forms of detention. Thousands lost their lives due to the regime’s violent repression. Many students also turned to armed resistance.
However, when the military regime refused to recognize the results of the 1990 election, it continued to rule the country illegitimately for the next 20 years, until 2010. During this period, Myanmar faced international sanctions. Around 1995, the regime attempted to convene a National Convention to draft a constitution, but these efforts failed.
Throughout those years, political activists—including the generations of ’62, ’74–’76, and ’88, as well as political party members, writers, and journalists—continued to resist the regime. Because it lacked public support, the military government could not establish itself as a legitimate authority. Only in 2008 did it forcibly hold a referendum and approve a constitution designed to entrench military control.
Following the adoption of the 2008 constitution, the military organized elections within two years under its own terms. It then transferred power to a military-backed political party composed of former officers in civilian attire, forming a parliament and government that gained international recognition. In effect, it took 20 years to impose and secure the constitution, but only about two years to establish an electoral system and parliament under that framework.
In 2012, opposition forces led by Daw Aung San Suu Kyi were allowed limited participation in parliamentary politics. The military and its political party sought to keep the opposition under control. Nevertheless, within the constraints of the 2008 constitution, the NLD led by Daw Aung San Suu Kyi won the 2015 election, took control of parliament, and formed a government.
From 2015 to 2020, tensions and confrontations persisted between the military (and its party) and the civilian government led by Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, which held only partial power. Despite strong public support for the elected government, progress toward democratic transition remained limited.
As a result, the 2020 election became another decisive contest between the military, its allied parties, and the ruling NLD. Once again, the NLD secured a decisive victory and won the majority of parliamentary seats.
However, in February 2021, the military refused to transfer power to the election-winning NLD and instead staged a coup. While it had tolerated the outcome in 2015, it rejected the 2020 result entirely because it did not align with its interests. This coup derailed the political transition toward democracy and a federal union.
Mass resistance began with nationwide nonviolent civil disobedience (CDM). But as the military escalated violence and carried out unlawful killings, the country descended into a full-scale civil war, with people across the country taking up arms. The National Unity Government (NUG), composed of elected leaders, members of parliament, and supporters of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi’s party, emerged as a revolutionary government leading the armed struggle. Over five years, the revolution has required immense resources and sacrifices.
Yet after five years (beyond February 2025), the military bloc has once again managed to re-establish a system under its control—based on its own constitution, its own managed elections, and a parliament it can influence—while continuing its military operations.
In contrast to the period following the 1988 uprising—when it took the military 20 years to establish a constitution, elections, and parliament—this time, within just five years of the Spring Revolution, it has been able to rebuild these structures while still waging war.
One key point that must be emphasized is that the constitution controlled by the military functions as its lifeline—a tool for survival and prolonging its rule. Recognizing this is crucial. As long as the military dictatorship continues to entrench itself, resistance must persist with even greater determination.
At the same time, anti-dictatorship forces—both above ground and underground—must strive to find a balance that aligns shared goals without falling into conflicting interests. History has repeatedly shown that when such balance is absent, alliances fracture, progress stalls, and coalitions fail to move forward.
Rather than attempting to combine incompatible parts, what is needed is to establish a common foundation—a shared denominator—so that collective efforts can be effectively unified. The military operates under a unified command structure and resolves internal conflicts through centralized authority, maintaining cohesion. If revolutionary forces cannot achieve a similar level of coordination and balance, the path ahead will inevitably remain long and difficult.