Divided we fall
Relationality as path to peace in Myanmar
The peace process in Myanmar is multifaceted and long-drawn. But what does peace look like for a country comprising myriad intersectional groups, born out of colonial divisions and fractiously bound together? Following the three-year anniversary of the Tatmadaw’s coup, this article explores the potentialities of taking a relational approach to Myanmar’s complex and countless moving parts as an entry point to lasting structures of peace and a future fit for all.
Conflict and connection
For many in Myanmar, life is marred by internecine ethno-religious conflicts enacted along colonial fault lines (Ganesan, 2017, p. 111; Ram Hlei Thang, 2019). Political isolationism and abyssal inequality have defined lives for generations (Thant Myint-U, 2021a). Given that Myanmar’s military junta have never known peace, reacting with violence to a perceived loss of power through the 2021 elections is grimly unsurprising. Now two years later, peace seems no closer and exhaustion and starvation are gradually dampening the interminable resistance as fury begins to fade into frustrated resignation.
Deep divisions persist across the country, this conflict shifting little for the ethnic groups and border dwellers who have lived with threat and resistance for decades. While some have continued to hold faith in the conciliatory power of the National League for Democracy (NLD) (Ganesan, 2017) and now the National Unity Government (NUG) for others, not limited to the Rohingya, the NUG too falls short of legitimacy, failing to promise the meaningful social inclusion they crave (Bertrand, 2022; Thant Myint-U, 2021b).
And yet, the response to the coup, which has seen rubber bullets give way to live ammunition and placards to armed militias (Clare, 2021), has been one of a generation of connection. Perhaps digital democracy has paved the way for a young public accustomed to having voice, choice, and freedom. The “cellphone democracy” quickly stifled in 2007 (Callahan, 2009, p. 28) has proven tenacious, the world beyond Myanmar’s borders once inaccessible has refused to dissipate as the Tatmadaw may wish. And yet this global world must feel distant to those who have given their youth and livelihoods to a struggle which has largely slipped into silence on the global stage. Despite government sanctions and statements of support from the global community, any peace in Myanmar will come from inside.
The current peace process
International calls for the cessation of violence and admission of humanitarian aid aim to restore negative peace and resume the process of liberal democratisation, a goal which has met little challenge despite elections being known to exacerbate conflict (Paris, 2004; Wilson, 2014, p. 16). Myanmar-led peacebuilding and diplomacy since 2010 has focused on ceasefire agreements through bureaucratic processes in which the State is prime despite the constitutional complexities and the obvious implications of State processes with military power (Haenni, n.d.).
The notion of the modern State, as it is conceived of in Western nations, is shaping Myanmar’s democratic transition; visions of freedoms are framed by liberal democracy and Western ideology. An oppositional binary between the State and the people has shaped UN and ASEAN diplomatic responses (Hossain, 2021). But rather than support inclusive positive peace, this State-central response presents minority groups with an ultimatum: continued conflict or hegemonic “Burmanization” (Bertrand, 2022, p. 25).
While elections and State legitimacy may prove crucial for long-term peace and stability (Sisk, 2009, p. 210), situating the State as one entity within a relational “multiverse of connectivities” (Hunt, 2018, p. 62) provides a more robust model of preventing future conflict. This relationality facilitates visions of a future beyond the cessation of the current coup, beyond narrow definitions of democracy.
What could peace look like for Myanmar?
In a country so shaped by conflict, genuine positive peace is uncharted territory requiring both courageous imagination and risk (Lederach, 2005, p. 36; Thant Myint-U, 2021a). Ongoing and gradual inclusivist peacebuilding targeting relationships as a central tenants of peace will be essential (Chandler, 2017). A plurivision of peace may leverage decentralised governance through a model of political hybridity. Engaging religious, community and de-militarised activist leaders and youth militias within an arrangement of intersecting political authorities could afford robust intersectional representation and foster social cohesion, while retaining international the sovereignty necessary to stand in the globalised world (Hunt, 2018; Sisk, 2009, p. 207; South, 2018). Providing structures to address the root causes of conflict in a systematic and sustainable way sets the foundation for long-lasting change. Regional curriculums which better reflect and preserve ethno-linguistic diversity and promote pride in pluralism and diversity (Bertrand, 2022), State secularism paired opportunities for diverse religious leadership and representation, and programs to support intercultural engagement within Myanmar to communicate and cultivate genuine inclusion may provide points of entry towards conditions for effective coexistence (Cheesman, 2017; Ram Hlei Thang, 2019).
Taking a relational approach prioritises human connections and builds peace from the ground up, acknowledging that any conversation about ‘the Myanmar people’ must refer to a heterogenous calamity of languages, religions, politics and visions of peace. This diversity need not entail division.
In understanding relationality across difference as a key dimension of peacemaking and peacebuilding in Myanmar, we can better understand how its complex moving parts may work with or against each other on the path to peace as the country continues to fight junta rule. It is clear that there can be no universal vision of a peaceful Myanmar, from within or without. But a multiplicity of interconnections, of difference and diversity, supported to thrive and co-exist within a hybrid political, social and religious ecology could promise a vision worth fighting for.
References
Bertrand, J. (2022). Education, language, and conflict in Myanmar’s ethnic minority states. Asian Politics and Policy, 14(1), 25–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/aspp.12621
Callahan, M. (2009). Myanmar’s perpetual junta: solving the riddle of the Tatmadaw’s long reign [Article]. New Left Review, 60, 27.
Chandler, D. (2017). Peacebuilding as Statebuilding. In Peacebuilding (pp. 69–91). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50322-6_4
Cheesman, N. (2017). Introduction: Interpreting Communal Violence in Myanmar. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 47(3), 335–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/00472336.2017.1305121
Clare, A. (2021). The Myanmar coup: a quick guide. https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp2122/Quick_Guides/MyanmarCoup
Ganesan, N. (2017). Democratization and Its Implications for the Resolution of Ethnic Conflict in Myanmar [Article]. Asian Journal of Peacebuilding, 5(1), 111–129. https://doi.org/10.18588/201705.00a018
Haenni, C. (n.d.). Myanmar’s peace process: 2010–2021. Kyoto Review of Southeast Asia. Retrieved March 23, 2022, from https://kyotoreview.org/issue-31/myanmars-peace-process-2010-2021/
Hossain, D. (2021, June 30). The UNGA Resolution on the Situation in Myanmar: Why was the Rohingya issue neglected? Modern Diplomacy. https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2021/06/30/the-unga-resolution-on-the-situation-in-myanmar-why-was-the-rohingya-issue-neglected/
Hunt, C. T. (2018). Hybridity Revisited: Relational Approaches to Peacebuilding in Complex Sociopolitical Orders. In J. Wallis, L. Kent, M. Forsyth, S. Dinnen, & S. Bose (Eds.), Hybridity on the ground in peacebuilding and development: critical conversations (pp. 51–65). ANU Press.
Lederach, J. Paul. (2005). On Simplicity and Complexity Finding the Essence of Peacebuilding. In The Moral Imagination: The Art and Soul of Building Peace (pp. 31–40). http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/rmit/detail.action?docID=3052023.
Paris, R. (2004). At war’s end: building peace after civil conflict. Cambridge University Press.
Ram Hlei Thang. (2019). Secularism and religious nationalism: A historical study of ethnic conflict in Myanmar. IKAT: The Indonesian Journal of Southeast Asian Social Studies, 3(1), 25–43.
Sisk, T. D. (2009). Pathways of the political: Electoral processes after civil war. In R. Paris & T. D. Sisk (Eds.), The dilemmas of statebuilding: Confronting the contradictions of postwar peace operations (pp. 196–223). Taylor & Francis Group.
South, A. (2018). “Hybrid Governance” and the Politics of Legitimacy in the Myanmar Peace Process. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 48(1), 50–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/00472336.2017.1387280
Thant Myint-U. (2021a, February 5). Myanmar needs a new kind of democracy: Conflict and economic inequality mean that tens of millions in Myanmar live the most precarious of lives. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/05/opinion/myanmar-coup.html
Thant Myint-U. (2021b, March 18). What next for Burma? London Book Review. https://www.lrb.co.uk/blog/2021/march/what-next-for-burma
Wilson, T. (2014). Debating Democratization in Myanmar. In N. Cheesman, N. Farrelly, & T. Wilson (Eds.), Debating Democratization in Myanmar (1st ed., pp. 11–17). Institute of Southeast Asian Studies — Yusof Ishak Institute. https://muse.jhu.edu/book/35411