Navigating Legitimacy: The Battle for Power in Myanmar’s Political Landscape

October 1,2025

Yangon,Myanmar – A persistent tension between practical control and legal recognition continues to define the political landscape in Myanmar,creating a critically important impediment to stable governance and international diplomacy. The struggle over legitimacy, pitting the realities of power against assertions of lawful authority, has deeply affected the nation’s trajectory since the 2021 military coup.

The Dual Faces of power

Currently, Myanmar exists in a state of contested governance. While the military junta exercises de facto control – meaning it holds actual power and influence over the contry’s management – it lacks widespread de jure legitimacy, which signifies legal or rightful recognition. This divide fuels ongoing conflict and complicates both domestic stability and external relations.

The military’s attempt to solidify its position through constitutional amendments and controlled elections has met with resistance from pro-democracy movements and the international community. Opposition groups, including the National Unity Government (NUG), claim to represent the legitimate will of the people, further complicating the picture.

Ancient Context of Legitimacy Struggles

Myanmar’s history is replete with instances where de facto and de jure power have been at odds. Periods of military rule have frequently enough been followed by transitions to civilian governance, but these transitions have often been incomplete, leaving the military with a significant role in political life. The current situation represents a particularly acute crisis of legitimacy, deepened by the widespread condemnation of the 2021 coup.

Concept	Description	Example in Myanmar
De Facto Power	Actual control over a country or region, irrespective of legal recognition.	The Tatmadaw (Myanmar military) controlling the government after the 2021 coup.
De Jure Power	Legally recognized authority or right to govern.	The claims of the National Unity Government (NUG) as the legitimate governing body.

Did You Know? the concept of legitimacy is central to political science, exploring how power is perceived and accepted by those subject to it. A lack of legitimacy can lead to instability, resistance, and protracted conflict.

International Implications and Regional Responses

The lack of a universally recognized legitimate government in Myanmar has created challenges for international engagement. Many nations have refrained from fully recognizing the military junta, opting instead for cautious diplomatic approaches and targeted sanctions. This cautious approach underscores a broader reluctance to endorse a regime that came to power through undemocratic means.

Regional actors, such as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), have attempted to mediate the crisis, but with limited success. The five-point consensus, a plan proposed by ASEAN to address the crisis, has been largely ignored by the military junta. ASEAN’s Five-Point Consensus remains a key, yet unrealized, diplomatic effort.

Pro tip: Understanding the distinction between de facto and de jure power is vital for interpreting political events and assessing the stability of governance structures in various countries.

As of September 2025, the ongoing civil unrest continues to hamper economic development and exacerbate humanitarian concerns within Myanmar. The legitimacy struggle continues to cast a long shadow over the country’s future, with little immediate resolution in sight.

The Future of Legitimacy in Myanmar

The path toward establishing lasting legitimacy in Myanmar will likely require inclusive dialog involving all stakeholders, including the military, pro-democracy groups, and ethnic representatives. A commitment to constitutional reform and free and fair elections would also be crucial. However, achieving these goals will be a monumental task, given the deep-seated divisions and distrust that currently exist.

the international community’s role in supporting this process will be critical. Maintaining pressure on the military junta through targeted sanctions and diplomatic isolation, while concurrently providing humanitarian assistance and support for civil society, coudl create a more conducive habitat for constructive dialogue.

Frequently Asked Questions About Myanmar’s Legitimacy Crisis

• What is the difference between de facto and de jure power? De facto power refers to actual control, while de jure power refers to legally recognized authority.
• Why is legitimacy crucial for a government? Legitimacy is essential for stability, as it fosters trust and acceptance from the population.
• What is ASEAN’s role in the Myanmar crisis? ASEAN has attempted to mediate the crisis through a five-point consensus, but its efforts have had limited success.
• How does the lack of legitimacy impact Myanmar’s economy? The crisis deters foreign investment and disrupts economic activity.
• What are the potential long-term consequences of this legitimacy struggle? Protracted conflict, political instability, and humanitarian crises are all potential consequences.

What impacts will the ongoing struggle for legitimacy have on the daily lives of Myanmar’s citizens? And how can international pressure be most effectively applied to encourage a transition towards a more democratic and inclusive government?

Share your thoughts in the comments below and help us continue the conversation!

How does the SAC attempt to establish legitimacy despite widespread domestic and international opposition?

The Post-Coup Power Dynamics

Since the February 2021 military coup, Myanmar has been embroiled in a complex struggle for legitimacy. The State Administration Council (SAC), the junta led by Min Aung Hlaing, asserts its authority, while the National Unity Government (NUG), formed by ousted lawmakers, and various ethnic armed organizations (EAOs) contest it. Understanding this fractured landscape requires examining the key players and their strategies. The core issue isn’t simply who holds power, but who is recognized as legitimate – both domestically and internationally. This impacts everything from economic stability to humanitarian aid access.

The State Administration Council (SAC): Maintaining Control Through Force

The SAC’s legitimacy rests primarily on its claim to safeguard national unity and stability, framing the coup as a necessary intervention against alleged electoral fraud in the 2020 elections. However, this claim is widely disputed.

* Suppression of Dissent: The SAC has responded to widespread protests with brutal force,leading to thousands of deaths and arrests. This has severely eroded its domestic legitimacy.

* Constitutional Amendments: attempts to legitimize its rule through constitutional amendments have been largely unsuccessful, failing to garner broad support.

* Economic Challenges: The coup has triggered a severe economic crisis, with the kyat depreciating and foreign investment plummeting. This economic instability further undermines the SAC’s claims of effective governance.

* International Isolation: Sanctions imposed by Western nations have limited the SAC’s access to international finance and trade, hindering its ability to consolidate power.

The National Unity Government (NUG): Building a Parallel State

The NUG, representing the Committee Representing Pyidaungsu Hluttaw (CRPH), aims to restore democratic governance. It operates largely in exile and through a network of underground resistance groups.

* People’s Defense Forces (PDFs): The NUG has established PDFs – armed resistance groups – across the country, engaging in armed conflict with the SAC. These forces are frequently enough formed in collaboration with EAOs.

* International Lobbying: The NUG actively lobbies for international recognition and support, seeking to delegitimize the SAC and secure aid for the resistance movement.

* Administrative Structures: The NUG is attempting to establish parallel administrative structures in areas under its control, providing essential services and challenging the SAC’s authority.

* Challenges to Unity: Maintaining unity among diverse ethnic groups and political factions within the NUG remains a significant challenge.

the Role of Ethnic Armed Organizations (EAOs)

Myanmar has a long history of ethnic conflict, with numerous EAOs operating in border regions. The coup has dramatically altered the dynamics between these groups and the central government.

* Shifting Alliances: Some EAOs, traditionally wary of the central government, have allied with the NUG, providing training, weapons, and logistical support to the PDFs.

* Territorial Control: EAOs control significant territory, particularly in border regions, and have become key players in the resistance movement.

* Autonomy vs. Democracy: While many EAOs share a common goal of opposing the SAC, their long-term objectives – particularly regarding autonomy and self-determination – may differ from the NUG’s vision of a unified, democratic Myanmar.

* Increased Conflict: The coup has intensified armed conflict in many areas, leading to a humanitarian crisis and displacement of civilians.

The Emerging Criminal Landscape: Scam Compounds and Regional Implications

The political instability has created a breeding ground for transnational crime, particularly the proliferation of scam compounds.Recent reports, including those from Channel News Asia https://www.channelnewsasia.com/asia/scamming-compounds-myanmar-cambodia-thailand-crackdown-crimes-5007171, highlight the scale of this issue.

* Myanmar as a Hub: Myanmar, particularly border regions controlled by EAOs, has become a major hub for online scam operations, targeting individuals globally.

* Forced Labor & Human Trafficking: These compounds frequently enough involve forced labor, human trafficking, and other forms of exploitation. Victims are lured with promises of high-paying jobs, only to be held captive and forced to participate in scams.

* Regional Crackdowns: Crackdowns by Thailand and China on these scam compounds demonstrate a growing regional concern and willingness to exert pressure on Myanmar.

* Impact on Legitimacy: The presence of these criminal enterprises further erodes the legitimacy of all actors in Myanmar, including the SAC, which is frequently enough accused of turning a blind eye to the problem.

International Involvement and the Path Forward

The international community faces a challenging dilemma in Myanmar. Direct intervention is unlikely, but continued sanctions and diplomatic pressure are seen as crucial.

* ASEAN’s Role: The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has attempted to mediate the crisis, but its efforts have been largely unsuccessful due to the SAC’s lack of commitment to implementing the Five-Point Consensus.

*