"The climate of fear and intimidation returned overnight."
The world awakened on Monday with troubling news from Myanmar: Its military had taken control, and had declared a state of emergency for one year. The military chief has been installed in power. The ruling party’s leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, had been detained.
In a statement, the military said the move was prompted by election fraud.
Myanmar is no stranger to military rule; the junta reigned for almost 50 years. Suu Kyi herself spent a total of 15 years in detention, and because of her quiet resistance and the hope that she inspired among her people, she was given the Nobel Peace Prize in 1991. It was only in 2011 that that military gave way to a democratic, civilian-led government. Four years later, Suu Kyi and the National League for Democracy swept an election hailed by the rest of the world as fair and free.
In those past 10 years, much has happened, even though much work remained to be done. For example, the constitution guarantees that the military would have a quarter of all seats in parliament and control of the most powerful ministries. Suu Kyi, who was once revered as an icon of democracy, fell from grace in the eyes of the world for her failure to address the crisis besetting the Rohingya people and the violence that they faced.
Still, the people benefited much from the change. Myanmar began to attract investments and encouraged entrepreneurs among its own people. As the country opened up and telecommunication infrastructure significantly improved, the youth were able to express themselves in technology, the arts and other fields. Famed spots were opened to tourists.
Alas, in the aftermath of the coup d’etat, the climate of fear and intimidation returned overnight, and people mostly stayed home, waiting to hear what was going on. The uncertainty is fueled by the disruption of telecommunication services, on which the people have come to rely. That the COVID-19 pandemic is still a threat does not offer any measure of comfort at all.
What is happening in Myanmar is a reality that many countries, democratic or otherwise, so painfully know. It is the affairs of the select few at the top that determine what happens to the rest of us: Their infighting, interests, and even their compromises define the kind of life that the rest of the population endure. We are sure that the ordinary Myanmar citizen does not care for the egos of the generals, or what agreements they forged with Suu Kyi and the civilian leaders. Unfortunately, though, it is the people whose routines are disrupted, small conveniences are denied, and futures are made bleak.