USIP.ORG SPECIAL REPORT 483 1

SPECIAL REPORT

NO. 483 | SEPTEMBER 2020 UNITED STATES INSTITUTE OF PEACE www.usip.org

Nonviolent Action in Myanmar: Challenges 

and Lessons for Civil Society and Donors

By La Ring, Khin Sandar Nyunt, Nist Pianchupat, and Shaazka Beyerle

Summary 

• As the forces binding the political 

opposition and civil society can fray 

after nonviolent transitions from authoritarianism, the relationship of 

Myanmar’s civil society—including 

social movement actors—with the 

governing National League for Democracy (NLD) has become contentious, with reduced levels of trust, in 

the midst of shrinking civic space 

and other mobilization challenges 

for strategic nonviolent action.

• Despite state and nonstate

repression, Myanmar’s nonviolent movements and campaigns

continue to mobilize, often with youth 

in the vanguard. They are pressing 

for an end to armed conflict, championing freedom of expression, and 

challenging the military’s influence.

• International support to social 

movement organizations appears 

to be minimal and usually consists 

of subgrants handled through international and national intermediaries. This approach has hampered 

donor engagement with local actors and unintentionally contributed 

to intra–civil society divides. 

• Donors should localize priorities 

and support sustained solidarity in 

the face of shrinking civic space, 

and enable nonviolent action capacities and youth leadership development through flexible financial and nonfinancial assistance.

Demonstrators protest a toughening Myanmar public assembly law in Yangon on March 5, 

2018. (Photo by Thein Zaw/AP)

Contents

Introduction ...................................3

Myanmar’s Nonviolent

Action Landscape.........................4

The Widening Divide between 

Civil Society and the NLD .......... 9

Obstacles to Mobilization.......... 18

Conclusion and 

Recommendations ..................... 19
2 SPECIAL REPORT 483 USIP.ORG

The views expressed in this report are those of the authors alone. They do not necessarily reflect the views of 

the United States Institute of Peace. An online edition of this and related reports can be found on our website 

(www.usip.org), together with additional information on the subject.

© 2020 by the United States Institute of Peace

United States Institute of Peace

2301 Constitution Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20037

Phone: 202.457.1700

Fax: 202.429.6063

E-mail: usip_requests@usip.org

Web: www.usip.org

Special Report No. 483. First published 2020.

ISBN: 978-1-60127-825-8 

NO. 483 | SEPTEMBER 2020

SPECIAL REPORT

ABOUT THE REPORT

This report explores the challenges facing civil society actors in Myanmar as 

they push for good governance, democracy, and peace. Based on in-country 

interviews and focus group discussions in 2019 with social movement and civic 

actors, national and subnational civil society organizations, and international 

actors, the report was supported by USIP’s Program on Nonviolent Action and 

the US Department of State’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

La Ring is a democracy and human rights researcher and educator and a former 

Asian Peacebuilders Scholar at the UN-mandated University for Peace. Khin 

Sandar Nyunt is a human rights activist, researcher, and former Civil Society 

Leadership Award scholar at Maastricht University. Nist Pianchupat is an 

international development researcher and former Asian Peacebuilders Scholar 

at the UN-mandated University for Peace. Shaazka Beyerle is a senior fellow at 

George Mason University’s Terrorism, Transnational Crime and Corruption Center.

NONVIOLENT 

ACTION
USIP.ORG SPECIAL REPORT 483 3

Introduction

Myanmar’s most recent political transition began in 2011 and reached a milestone in 2015, when, 

after nearly five decades of military rule, the opposition National League for Democracy (NLD) 

won a decisive victory in partly free parliamentary elections. The party underwent an abrupt 

identity shift: from an internationally lauded pro-democracy movement to the civilian powerholder in government. The election was widely hailed as a significant turning point in Myanmar’s 

democratic transition, with great promise for resolving long-standing problems of governance 

and civil conflict. But the euphoria that the NLD victory inspired within Myanmar civil society and 

the international community has gradually diminished. The anticipated opening of the political 

system and civic space and a full transition from military rule have not materialized.1

 Hopes for 

peace have also stalled as armed conflict continues between national security forces and ethnically based rebel groups in the states of Kachin, Shan, and Rakhine.2 Most tragically, after a 

2017 attack by a Rohingya insurgent group, the military launched a brutal “clearance operation” 

against the Rohingya civilian population, resulting in razed villages, human rights abuses, and 

hundreds of thousands of mostly Muslim refugees fleeing to neighboring Bangladesh.3

During this troubled transition, Myanmar civil society has gone through its own process of 

transformation. Civic organizations, many of which had been partners with the NLD prior to its 

entrance into government, have since charted their own paths, often in opposition to their former allies. The expansion of civil society in general has been facilitated by support from external 

Youth activists hold placards demanding peace and help for war victims at an anti-war rally in Yangon on May 12, 2018.

(Photo by Thein Zaw/AP)
4 SPECIAL REPORT 483 USIP.ORG

actors, but while this has nurtured significant organizational growth, it has also fueled intergroup 

competition, “NGO-ization” of groups (i.e., their professionalization and institutionalization), and 

disconnection from citizens. Although international support for social movements does not appear to be as extensive, by default they are a part of civil society, operate within this environment, and are affected by these dynamics. 

This report focuses on the main challenges facing social movements in Myanmar today 

and the interplay of those challenges with donor practices in an overall context of shrinking 

civic space. It begins with three cases of organized nonviolent action in Kachin, Mandalay, and 

Yangon. The report then explores the divide that has opened between civil society and the NLD 

government and the rifts that have emerged within civil society itself and that have been inadvertently exacerbated by donors and other international actors. It concludes with synergized 

recommendations for social movement actors, civil society, and donors to enable organized 

nonviolent action for interrelated goals around accountability, good governance, democracy, 

equitable development, and peacebuilding.

The narratives and findings in this report come from field research conducted by the first three 

authors from June to November 2019. It consisted of focus group discussions with civil society 

organizations (CSOs) and national and local social movement actors in Kachin, Mandalay, and 

Yangon, as well as one-on-one interviews with a total of thirty-one national and local civic leaders in those parts of the country, and external actors (bilateral donors, embassies, international 

nongovernmental organizations, implementing partners, and private foundations). The term 

“CSO” encompasses a wide range of types of organizations, and thus, where necessary, the report distinguishes between those that are formal (registered) or informal (unregistered) and between national, subnational, and local CSOs. The report also differentiates, where appropriate, 

between CSOs and social movement organizations (SMOs), the latter being a subset of the former. 

Nonviolent action is a method of advancing social, political, and economic change that includes 

tactics of protest, noncooperation, and intervention designed to shift power in a conflict without 

the threat or use of violence. These methods are nonviolent in that they do not include the threat 

or use of injurious force to others.4

 Social movements are fluid groups of people, organizations, 

coalitions, and networks that use nonviolent collective action to advance change-oriented goals.5

Myanmar’s Nonviolent

Action Landscape

Social movements, as well as other forms of organized nonviolent action in Myanmar, are composed of a broad and fluid range of formal and informal actors working together around shared 

grievances and goals. They include civic leaders and activists; informal groups; CSOs; coalitions, alliances, and networks; unions; professional organizations; community-based and selfhelp associations; and faith-based organizations. Some actors in the social movement sphere 

participate over time while others come and go but maintain relationships and affiliations. Formal 

CSOs often provide policy, legislative, and technical expertise, legal counseling, and other 
USIP.ORG SPECIAL REPORT 483 5

services to maintain and assist a movement. International 

actors thus have numerous potential direct and indirect 

counterparts for engagement and support in social movement ecosystems.6

Social movements deploy extra-institutional methods, 

such as protests, boycotts, demonstrations, cultural and 

artistic expressions, and mutual socioeconomic empowerment, sometimes in combination with institutional measures, to achieve social, political, and economic change. SMOs often provide a movement with 

leadership, strategizing, and planning capabilities. However, SMOs are not essential for movements to flourish, and many movements operate without them.

Myanmar has a history of nonviolent action. Movements driven by student mobilization 

emerged in the late-colonial period, initially pressing for independence and later, after the 1962 

military coup, for democracy and human rights. In August 1988, university students launched 

pro-democracy protests that grew into the “88 Generation” movement. Aung San Suu Kyi, 

daughter of the country’s independence leader, General Aung San, soon became the face of 

the uprising and helped form the opposition NLD party. The regime promised elections, which 

were finally held in 1990, but not before a violent crackdown on the movement. Although the 

NLD won 80 percent of parliamentary seats in the 1990 elections, the regime refused to recognize the results, banned the party, and placed Aung San Suu Kyi under house arrest.7

The next major outpouring of civic action took place in August 2007. Protests and other forms 

of civil disobedience—originally spurred by a dramatic rise in fuel prices—spread around the 

country in the so-called Saffron Revolution to end military rule. The uprising was driven by activists, 88 Generation movement veterans, the NLD, women’s groups, and Buddhist monks. The 

regime responded with another fierce crackdown on protesters, which provoked widespread 

international condemnation and sanctions.8 Although repression temporarily quelled overt dissent and street actions, it failed to crush defiance and aspirations for democracy and justice. 

Shortly after the Saffron Revolution, the regime’s ineptitude following the aftermath of the devastating Cyclone Nargis, and its initial refusal of international aid, compounded its loss of legitimacy and stoked popular resentment. In 2011, the military-led government began a series 

of dialogues with Aung San Suu Kyi and the NLD over terms for liberalizing the regime and 

opening space for democratic participation. The dialogues resulted in the NLD’s participation 

in by-elections in 2012. NLD candidates won forty-three out of forty-four available seats and 

became a minority party in government. The reform process accelerated until the 2015 election, 

which the NLD won by a landslide.

External observers have typically attributed this political upheaval to rising social pressures, 

dissatisfaction with the government, and elite-level negotiations. But civil society actors were 

also active—and influential—throughout the period from the Saffron Revolution to the 2015 election. After the regime signed the Myitsone Dam project with China in 2008, construction ceased 

in 2011 in the face of a nonviolent campaign in Kachin that grew into a national movement 

involving a wide range of civic groups, environmental activists, artists, musicians, academics, 

community members, and even some politicians.9 A 2009 natural gas pipeline deal with China 

Myanmar has a history of nonviolent 

action. Movements driven by student 

mobilization emerged in the late-colonial 

period, initially pressing for independence 

and later, after the 1962 military coup, 

for democracy and human rights.
6 SPECIAL REPORT 483 USIP.ORG

also spurred protests over what was deemed unfair land expropriation, pollution concerns, and 

negligible benefits for local communities in Rakhine State.10 In 2014, the NLD and an SMO affiliated with the 88 Generation launched a campaign to reform the 2008 constitution. The campaign gathered over 5 million signatures in support of the amendments, but reform was blocked 

in parliament by military representatives.11

In the years since the 2015 election, civic actors across Myanmar have continued to engage 

in nonviolent action to counter injustice and atrocities. Their initiatives vary widely in terms of the 

types of actors involved, the strategies and tactics employed, scale of activities, and objectives. 

The following three cases illustrate the diversity of nonviolent action initiatives at the nexus of 

accountability, good governance, democracy, peacebuilding, human rights, and development.

WAGING NONVIOLENT ACTION FOR PEACE 

In 2011, a seventeen-year-old cease-fire agreement broke down between the military and the 

Kachin Independence Army (KIA)—one of many armed, ethnic, self-determination groups in the 

country—resulting in the displacement of over one hundred thousand people.12 Human rights violations were committed by both parties.13 Since then, humanitarian issues in Kachin have been 

a central concern for both the international community and domestic peacebuilders. Youth activists and religious institutions have featured prominently in the peacebuilding and nonviolent 

action space—leading, for instance, an annual peace campaign to end the ongoing civil war and 

increase humanitarian assistance to internally displaced persons (IDPs). 

Although these movements have spurred many youth to become more politically motivated 

and involved in nonviolent action, they have rarely had a direct impact on the conflict. The situation changed in April 2018. As fighting between the Tatmadaw (the official name for the Myanmar 

armed forces) and the KIA intensified, roughly five thousand young people, calling themselves 

the Kachin Youth Movement, mobilized in the Kachin capital city, Myitkyina, to help eight thousand IDPs caught in the conflict zone and trapped in forests. The youth made three demands to 

the military: free the trapped IDPs, allow the delivery of humanitarian aid, and include youth and 

civil society participation in the rescue mission and the provision of aid. These requests were 

designed to be achievable and nonpolitical, thereby increasing the chances of success and 

reducing the risk of a crackdown.14

When their initial notification letter to hold an overnight prayer vigil was rejected by the local 

police commander, the young protesters set up a camp at Manau Park, a public place of symbolic and cultural significance. The next day, they camped outside the offices of the Kachin State 

government, drawing attention with musicians, singing, and balloons. When the police arrived to 

disband them, the youth refused to budge and demanded to meet the Kachin State chief minister and the Union (national) minister of social welfare, relief, and resettlement. In early May, as 

a result of negotiations with these officials, IDPs trapped in two villages were safely evacuated, 

after which the protestors agreed to disperse.15

Several factors contributed to the movement’s success. The young people were able to organize rapidly, thanks to the existence of broad-ranging, interconnected civil society networks 

across the state. They also maintained nonviolent discipline despite police intimidation. The 

humanitarian nature of their issue, their youthful image, and their eye-catching tactics won the 
USIP.ORG SPECIAL REPORT 483 7

sympathy of the public throughout Myanmar, inspiring solidarity 

and antiwar protests in other parts 

of the country, including Bago, 

Mandalay, and Yangon. Bridges 

were built between rights-based 

activists and peace activists, between national-level, Yangonbased and subnational civil society leaders and organizations, 

and across ethnic groups. The 

presence of the mainstream media and diplomatic community 

in Yangon also helped increase 

awareness of the Kachin conflict, 

the plight of IDPs, and the Kachin 

Youth Movement. 

The value of the movement’s 

broad networks was underlined 

in December 2018, when the government attempted a crackdown, 

sentencing three movement 

leaders to six months in prison 

for “defaming” the Tatmadaw under section 500(b) of the Penal 

Code.16 The sentences backfired, 

drawing the attention of not only 

local activists but also the international community.17 That same 

month, approximately six thousand Myitkyina residents demonstrated against the trio’s imprisonment.18 The three leaders have since been released and have 

resumed their roles within the Kachin Youth Movement. 

CHAMPIONING FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

Since 2016, civil society activists have organized public campaigns in Yangon against the restrictive Telecommunications Law and its section 66(d), of which mandates up to three years in jail 

for “extorting, coercing, restraining wrongfully, defaming, disturbing, causing undue influence 

Bay of 

Bengal

INDIA

BANGLADESH

CHINA

LAOS

THAILAND

Chin 

Kachin 

Shan 

Tanintharyi 

Sagaing 

Magway 

Bago 

Yangon

Mandalay

Naypyidaw

Kayin

Kayah

Mon 

Rakhine 

Yangon 

Mandalay 

Area 

enlarged

Ayeyarwady

MAP 1. MYANMAR

Adapted from artwork by 

Rainer Lesniewski/Shutterstock
8 SPECIAL REPORT 483 USIP.ORG

or threatening to any person by using any Telecommunications Network.” The government has 

expansively interpreted the law to crack down on freedom of expression.19 After two prominent 

editors were arrested in 2017, a coalition of local and international rights groups formed to push 

for reform of the law.20 The new Digital Rights Coalition Group launched the #SayNoTo66(d) 

campaign, which included creating an online data dashboard of cases, and lobbied the government and parliamentary committees to repeal article 66(d) and amend article 77. Individuals 

involved in the campaign also took part in nonviolent action organized by other groups; for 

example, they participated in the Blue Shirt solidarity campaign, where activists wore blue shirts 

(signifying those worn by political prisoners) and attended court hearings of activists, and in 

the Right to Information campaign to free two Myanmar Reuters journalists imprisoned for their 

reports about massacres of Rohingya Muslims. In 2018, a series of public protests for freedom 

of expression and media freedom was organized as a result of collaboration among civil rights 

activists and journalists. 

Learning from their experiences around networking, solidarity, and media attention, the coalition has evolved into the Freedom of Expression Advocacy Coalition. Established in March 

2020, and seeking to build unity beyond a narrow constituency, it has brought together eighteen Myanmar CSOs with expertise in a range of areas—from the legal system, to media, activism, research, grassroots education, and digital rights. It aims to expand its membership, scope, 

and activities yet further.21

USING CULTURE AND HUMOR TO CLAIM CIVIC SPACE

In Myanmar, as elsewhere in the world, activists use art and cultural expression as tactics to express dissent, connect to citizens, and challenge injustice.22 The Peacock Generation is a youth 

troupe that performs “Thangyat,” a traditional Burmese art form similar to “slam poetry,”23 usually 

performed during the Buddhist New Year. Thangyat combines humor, song, and dance for social 

and political critique. In 2019, several poets in the Peacock Generation were arrested, detained, 

and subsequently sentenced to one year in prison in a Yangon township under article 66(d) of 

the Telecommunications Law and section 505(a) (punishment for defamation) of the Penal Code. 

Kay Khine Tun, Zay Yar Lwin, Paing Phyo Min, Paing Ye Thu, Zaw Lin Htut, and Su Yandanar Myint 

are currently serving prison sentences.24 On June 11, 2020, two local courts in the Ayeyarwady 

Region also sentenced Paing Phyo Min, Paing Ye Thu, and Zay Yar Lwin to two years of prison 

with hard labor, bringing their incarceration to a total of four years and six months.25

The repression is backfiring, drawing national attention and international condemnation. In a 

letter from prison, Zayar Lwin and Paing Ye Thu declared, “We will keep criticizing and pointing 

out the flawed system in different ways because it is important for us to amend the constitution 

and to get the military out of politics so that we can pursue genuine democracy in Myanmar.”26
USIP.ORG SPECIAL REPORT 483 9

The Widening Divide between 

Civil Society and the NLD

Myanmar’s civil society has had a history of “complex and contentious” relationships with the 

state that continues today.27 Prior to the onset of political reform in 2011, the NLD had a dual identity as both an opposition political party and a key player in the democracy movement. Upon 

assuming power in 2016, many veterans of the movement shifted to government and politics.28

Others joined or created formal CSOs. Relations between the government and civil society were 

initially constructive. For example, civil society actors and the NLD worked together closely on 

the legislative reform of the Ward or Village Tract Administration Law.29 Elections for ward and 

village tract administrators are a critical component of local democracy and “a way for ordinary 

citizens to exercise their democratic rights, and crucial for the development of active citizenship 

and good local governance.”30 However, by 2017 the relationship between the NLD government 

and civil society began to fray, in large part due to mistrust and shrinking civic space. 

GROWING MISTRUST

Many CSOs have become disappointed in the NLD, which they feel tends to regard them with 

suspicion and to keep them at arm’s length.31 Such sentiments were echoed by international 

actors and civil society respondents in this study. As an interviewee from a multilateral institution 

Members of Peacock Generation Thangyat performance group, from left: Zayar Lwin, Paing Phyo Min, Su Yadanar Myint, and Kay Khine 

Tun, leave court after their trial on October 30, 2019, in Yangon. (Photo by Thein Zaw/AP)
1 0 SPECIAL REPORT 483 USIP.ORG

observed, “There is a tension or trust issue between CSOs 

and the government.” Respondents surmised that civic 

actors are perceived by the NLD to be “spoilers or problem-makers” and thus barriers to the government achieving its objectives. A prominent young rights defender 

voiced frustration: “It seems like they [the NLD government] assume that we [activist organizations] are not at a 

proper level to meet with them.” Other rights-based civic respondents argued that as the NLD is 

no longer an opposition party and is now in power, it should be open to criticism and embrace 

accountability by strengthening mechanisms of checks and balances. 

Some research participants postulated that because the NLD, unlike the previous government, was democratically elected, it believes it already has won domestic and international legitimacy and therefore does not need to cultivate it. The NLD expects civil society to support and 

reinforce its policies and activities. According to a diplomatic interviewee, “They see themselves 

as the people’s party, so they feel they don’t need to consult with civil society organizations.” 

This has contributed to an underutilization of CSO competency on a range of policy issues and 

sectors, including peacebuilding, human rights, health, education, natural resource governance, 

and labor.32

At both the subnational and national levels, research participants reported that in matters 

of contact with CSOs, the NLD party has created a restrictive environment characterized by 

centralized control. For some, regular contact with officials has dramatically reduced. A Kachin 

respondent recounted: 

We, youth activists, had more freedom in the last government when advocating for youth 

policy. They even organized a monthly informal meeting with civil society. However, under 

this NLD government, when we went to meet with the chief minister of Kachin State, he always 

first asks for the opinion from ministers of Border Affairs and the Social Welfare Department in 

order to make one decision. Based on their responses, he decides either yes or no.

One respondent, who has been addressing intercommunal conflicts and social cohesion 

since 2013, offered an example of the difficulties of trying to engage with NLD legislators: “We 

[the organization] usually invite parliamentarians for conflict prevention workshops. As in a case 

in one township in Yangon, a [regional] parliamentarian declined to join the meeting. He was 

afraid of his party [NLD] because he needs permission from the Central Executive Committee.”

A vicious cycle has developed. As the government curbs contact between itself and some 

parts of civil society, opportunities for trust building and collaboration decline, particularly around 

contentious issues such as the military’s power outside of the barracks. This in turn reinforces 

suspicion and widens the divide between the two sectors at a time when, most civil society actors 

agree, Myanmar needs unity and sustained top-down and bottom-up pressure to reform the 2008 

Constitution, consolidate peace, rally public support for democratic consolidation, and tackle drivers of fragility and violence at the nexus of governance, development, and human rights. 

Nonetheless, these restrictions are not entirely inescapable. Civic actors have found creative ways to circumvent them, such as through informal meetings with legislators and officials 

A vicious cycle has developed. As the 

government curbs contact between itself 

and some parts of civil society, opportunities 

for trust building and collaboration decline 

. . . This in turn reinforces suspicion.
USIP.ORG SPECIAL REPORT 483 11

outside of work settings. In addition, respondents noted that it is easier to approach and engage 

subnational parliaments (including some members of parliament [MPs]) in Kachin and Mandalay 

than to try to engage corresponding subnational administrations. These interactions with subnational legislators have proven to be mutually beneficial. On the one side, these MPs need 

research-based information but often do not have the time or resources to gather it themselves. 

Civil society actors, in some cases, have been able to fill this gap. On the other side, many local 

research-oriented CSOs also need the support of MPs because their ultimate objective is to 

push for legal reforms. 

SHRINKING CIVIC SPACE

Article 354 of Myanmar’s 2008 Constitution promises freedoms of assembly, association, and expression—three fundamental human rights upholding organized nonviolent action. However, most 

respondents asserted that rights-based defenders, CSOs, and the media are facing oppressive 

measures that restrict civic space. “I feel like we are reversed back into the military regime period 

when it comes to space of civil society movement. We face the same restrictions, both from legal 

and physical threats, whenever we do community events,” remarked a respondent from a health 

rights organization. A subnational civic activist remarked that the NLD government does not want 

to allow any open discussion of, or any action to address, “issues that affect their core interests 

such as natural resources and their power. In this case [when they want to impose restrictions], they 

use tools such as legal charges, detaining protestors, and taking action severely.” A research participant who works for an international foundation observed that although people in government 

have changed, the system has not yet changed. A significant hurdle is the current Constitution, 

which dates from 2008 and enshrines the military’s role as a political force. One-quarter of parliamentary seats are allocated to it, and any constitutional amendments require the support of 75 

percent of MPs, essentially providing the armed forces with a veto over structural and political 

change. The Constitution also gives the Tatmadaw control of key ministries and departments. 

In general, both national and subnational authorities are imposing restrictions on CSOs, 

SMOs, and informal groups that impact trainings, public gatherings, community organizing, and 

civic mobilization all the way to local levels. In addition to being targeted by laws that curtail their 

freedom of assembly, association, and expression, often employed together to create double 

binds for CSOs and social movement actors, rights-based activists and groups have been facing 

increasing state harassment, particularly by the military and military-controlled ministries.33

The Peaceful Assembly and Peaceful Procession (PAPP) Law, amended in 2016, is the key 

legal instrument used to suppress nonviolent street action. A 2020 report by a national human 

rights organization found that “80% of the charges laid down against the 229 protesters between October 2016 and November 2019 fell under the PAPP Law.”34 During the 2018 IDP crisis 

in Kachin, fifty activists were arrested in the aforementioned nonviolent antiwar mobilizations in 

Mandalay, Yangon, Myitkyina, and Pyay and Nattalin townships in the region of Bago.35

According to the letter of the law, anyone convening a peaceful assembly must give the 

authorities prior notification of the event. In practice, however, this notification is treated as an 

application for permission, which authorities can deny. Moreover, applicants are often obliged to 

follow an onerous process that requires giving as much as ten days’ advance notice, submitting 
1 2 SPECIAL REPORT 483 USIP.ORG

extensive paperwork to the respective state or regional government office, and sending copies 

to relevant ministries, districts, and townships. This creates an administrative burden as well as a 

climate of uncertainty and anxiety for civil society—including social movement actors—challenging vested interests and tackling politically sensitive problems. 

Authorities have also adopted measures to curtail public events, meetings, and trainings—

precisely the kinds of activities that are vital to community organizing, citizen engagement, and 

capacity building for nonviolent action and peacebuilding. As respondents described, these restrictions can vary from place to place. In 2017, for instance, Mandalay State’s NLD chief minister, a 

former political prisoner and trade unionist, issued a decree requiring every social and nonprofit 

organization to obtain permission from the local government to organize public events and activities. A trade union respondent shared that most of the union’s permit applications for trainings 

have been rejected. An interfaith activist recounted that organizers applied for a permit to hold 

a large interfaith ceremony in Meiktila, the site of Buddhist-Muslim communal violence in 2013.36

Their application was rejected a day before the event. “If the CSOs do the activities that go 

against the government or the organization that they do not like, they did not give the permission 

to host the event and pressured [the CSOs] to shut down the activity or move to other places.” 

Organizers are also asked to provide advance profiles of resource persons conducting trainings. 

Civil society actors in Yangon reported somewhat less trying experiences insofar as they can 

organize events or meetings with a relative degree of freedom and independence. But they 

have encountered significant restrictions on media coverage of their activities. For example, if a 

public event is hosted in a hotel and media are invited, the organizer must inform the management of their presence, because hotels are instructed to notify the local administration office 

about events at which media are present. “It’s not an official government decree, but instructions from the Union government to township administration departments,” explained a CSO 

respondent and former Generation 88 veteran.

A second restrictive mechanism is the Law Relating to Registration of Organizations, which 

was introduced in 2014. Civic leaders and activists consistently reported that groups are pressured to formally register even though this is voluntary under the law.37 Not only can the process 

be difficult and time-consuming, but also the government has denied registration to major CSOs 

that focus on peace, anticorruption, transparency and accountability, election monitoring, land 

rights, and environmental and resource extraction.38 Once registered, CSOs must submit financial and activity reports to the government. Some unregistered groups have experienced exclusion and harassment. Research participants remarked that the NLD government and members 

of the Pyithu Hluttaw (Lower Parliament) unofficially use registration status to exclude CSOs from 

policy discussions, preferring to interact with registered groups. Yangon focus group discussants said that this “started around 2017. . . . Internally, within NLD, their members [of parliament] 

are instructed what event to attend, what organization to meet, etc. They mainly ask for the 

status of being registered. If [it’s a] non-registered organization, it is difficult to meet or talk to 

them.” Moreover, many authorities at the state and regional levels insist that CSOs be registered 

before they can organize events.39

The freedom to criticize the government and military remains a sensitive issue. A 2019 Human 

Rights Watch report concluded that “while discussion of a wide range of topics now flourishes in 
USIP.ORG SPECIAL REPORT 483 13

both the media and online, those 

speaking critically of the government, government officials, the 

military, or events in Rakhine State 

frequently find themselves subject to arrest and prosecution.”40

A 2019 mid-term report by a freedom of expression organization 

called Athan (“Voice” in Burmese) 

documented that activists, artists, 

journalists, students, and citizens 

exercising online freedom of expression were the targets of the majority of legal cases lodged for 

criticizing the military, MPs, military representatives in parliament, and civil servants.41

One major instrument to curb freedom of speech is article 66(d) of the Telecommunications 

Law.42 As illustrated in the cases of the Digital Rights Coalition Group and the Peacock Generation, 

defamation charges under this article have been used selectively to arrest reporters, civic actors, activists, and even politicians. In August 2017, the law was amended to be slightly less 

restrictive following pressure by civil rights activists and lawyers from twenty-two CSOs.43 At the 

time of writing, the amendments are being considered in the Pyithu Hluttaw.44 A second legal 

instrument used to muzzle activists and journalists is the Penal Code, and in particular sections 

500 (punishment for defamation) and 505 (statements conducing to public mischief).45 The latter 

is used to target individuals who criticize the military. Section 17/1 of the colonial-era Unlawful 

Associations Act has also been used to intimidate civil society groups and silence journalists 

and perceived political opponents, particularly among minority ethnic communities.46

Alarmed by these developments, both external actors and rights-based activists interviewed 

for this study asserted that freedom of expression and press freedom must urgently be addressed for any meaningful democratization process to advance. An interviewee from an international funding agency stated that, since 2018, the right to freedom of expression has again 

become a priority programmatic issue in Myanmar, and funding for freedom of expression programs has been included in the agency’s 2020 funding cycle. Likewise, SMOs are changing 

their approaches and tactics. Respondents said that rebuilding the foundation of human rights 

and democracy values at the grassroots level is critical. “We have to use people power,” declared a Yangon social movement actor. Some of these SMOs are now focusing on human 

rights education activities such as local research and documentation, trainings, and public talks 

and other forms of citizen engagement that connect rights with people’s problems. Research 

participants also noted that human rights defenders and activists in Myanmar lack protection 

Activists hold up blue t-shirts 

emblazoned with slogans urging 

protections for freedom of expression 

during the trial of members of Peacock 

Generation Thangyat performance 

group on October 30, 2019, in Yangon. 

(Photo by Thein Zaw/AP)
1 4 SPECIAL REPORT 483 USIP.ORG

mechanisms. Human rights defenders have urged the government to ratify the International 

Convention on Civil and Political Rights and to prioritize reform of the Myanmar National Human 

Rights Commission, which is viewed as lacking in authority and being neither independent nor 

effective in gaining accountability for human rights violations.47

In addition to state repression, organized vigilantes, including hard-line Buddhist nationalists 

with links to the police and Tatmadaw, intimidate, beat, and even arrest protestors and civic actors.48 Some respondents cited threats by Buddhist nationalist groups for interfaith activities in 

Mandalay and described attacks during peace protests in Yangon. Not surprisingly, this degree 

of intimidation can lead to self-censorship. For instance, a participant from a Mandalay-based 

ethnic association pointed out that some human rights defenders, especially those from marginalized and minority religious groups, hesitate to speak out for their rights because they fear they 

will provoke a backlash against their communities.

Not all sectors of civil society face restrictions. Where the goals of a group or civic initiative 

correspond with the priorities of the national or a subnational government, that group or initiative is less likely to be supressed. A respondent from a women’s leadership organization 

revealed that the organization’s advocacy effort was welcomed by the authorities. Even in the 

human rights sphere, the issue being addressed can affect the official response. A research participant with a human rights education organization cited their direct advocacy and engagement 

with Union MPs to reform the National Child Law, contributing to its 2019 passage. The respondent argued that this reform was in the interest of the government, which was obliged to submit 

a national child law report to the United Nations Human Rights Council through the Universal 

Periodic Review process. However, such openings can create a false sense of security. What is 

acceptable to the government and military today may not be tomorrow.

GROWING DIVISIONS WITHIN CIVIL SOCIETY

Prior to Myanmar’s democratic opening, civil society was accustomed to operating in opposition and, for the most part, in exile. Once absolute military rule ended, the glue holding civil 

society together—shared goals and collective identity—began to loosen. At the same time, the 

civic realm’s composition began to change with the return of exiled groups more familiar with 

international standards and practices. Divisions soon emerged between these returnees and 

domestic groups that were, initially at least, less savvy about administrative affairs but had a 

more nuanced grasp of the country context. 

Virtually all Myanmar respondents agreed that civil society segmentation is draining the sector’s power and resilience. It has engendered competition rather than collaboration and inhibited 

the building of unity and coalitions, the formation of synergies and linkages across issues, and 

the emergence and sustainability of nonviolent action campaigns and movements. A weakened 

civic realm has less capacity to counter closing civic space and harness people power to advance peace, social justice, democracy, accountable governance, and inclusive development.

A major division exists between those groups that believe it is essential to support the NLD 

government and those that believe in a rights-based approach that involves watchdogging the 

government, even if it is led by the NLD. The 2017 Rohingya crisis exposed these differences 

even further. Broadly speaking, the CSOs supportive of the government were silent over the 
USIP.ORG SPECIAL REPORT 483 15

atrocities committed by the military, whereas their rights-based counterparts condemned the 

violence and urged the government to take steps to mitigate the subsequent refugee crisis. 

Some respondents postulated that, at the very least, these divisions make it easier for rightsbased civic actors to distinguish between allies and opponents, discern who stands for what, 

identify common ground, build solidarity, and effectively plan advocacy and nonviolent action 

initiatives. “We need to pass through this stage,” commented one respondent. “There is no surprise; it is a way to democracy.”

Another civil society divide is between elite and grassroots CSOs. Recent research and analysis have highlighted this growing trend among civic groups around the world. 49 It is manifested 

in gaps between the center and the periphery and between professionalized/registered CSOs 

and informal groups/SMOs that are closer to communities and citizens.50

In many parts of the world, the practices of external actors have contributed to these rifts, and 

Myanmar is no exception. Since 2011, when the country’s reform period began, civil society has 

undergone an “NGO-ization” in terms of formal registration and organizational professionalization spurred by donor requirements, resulting in weakened relations with the grassroots.51 A 

Kachin SMO interviewee captured this dynamic: “The local groups might not be professional but 

they are working for the needs of the community. However, now, many donors just encouraged 

[them] slowly to become professional NGOs that lead to project or donor-driven organizations.”

Many international actors embraced the transition and actively supported civil society, mainly 

through intermediaries and large formalized CSOs in Yangon. By 2018, Myanmar was one of the 

largest recipients of international assistance in the world, as donors and international nongovernmental organizations (INGOs) sought to tackle extensive poverty and support democratic 

outcomes.52 Donor strategy documents, along with input from research respondents, indicate 

that few international actors in Myanmar do significant direct outreach to grassroots and social 

movement actors or to local CSOs to analyze the dynamics, urgencies, and needs concerning 

transparency, accountability, good governance, development, and human rights issues on the 

ground. Bilateral and multilateral donors have tended to distribute financial support via multilateral institutions (such as the United Nations), INGOs, implementing partners, and well-established national CSOs that in turn distribute funding to other local CSOs through subgranting. The 

European Union and its development partners in Myanmar have routed their funds via INGOs 

and large domestic CSOs that are “well-equipped to comply with the accountability standards.”53

International respondents cited administrative, political, and practical reasons for their preference to not engage directly with grassroots groups and social movements. The most noteworthy of their reasons was to protect recipients from state harassment. For example, one large 

bilateral donor voiced concern that in a country “where the political space opens and then 

closes again,” large amounts of externally provided funding could potentially put local CSO 

staff at risk of arrest on charges of tax fraud or mismanagement—a tactic frequently used by 

authoritarian governments to repress civil society. The respondent also explained that their 

institution relies on its international partners that are “used to dealing with [our] bureaucracy in 

grant management.”

While INGOs receiving international funds are encouraged by their funders to partner with 

local grassroots groups to strengthen local capacities, there is a growing consensus among 
1 6 SPECIAL REPORT 483 USIP.ORG

some major donors that this practice is undermining their 

own relationships with grassroots groups that ultimately 

drive progress. A bilateral donor stated, “If change is going to happen, it’s not through INGOs, but the local partners. INGOs are here to support them.” An assessment of 

the EU Roadmap for Civil Society Engagement in Myanmar 

(2014–2017) reports that “the use of third parties for the 

implementation of many programmes has hampered EUD 

[European Union Delegation Myanmar] opportunities to reach and engage local CSOs in policy 

dialogue and has further resulted in competition for funding.” As a result, the EUD launched the 

EU-CSO Partnership Strategy 2018–2020, which includes structured dialogues and “civil society 

fairs” at the national and subnational levels.54

The practice of using intermediaries for donor engagement and subgranting through INGOs, 

implementing partners, and in-country CSOs/consortia divided opinion among research participants. Yangon-based civil society actors, including SMOs, rights-based activist groups, and 

community-based organizations, spoke positively about their ability to access international support through consortia of Myanmar CSOs. They said they had good access to external actors, as 

well as to a variety of grant types and grant application forms in Burmese (although not in other 

languages). In contrast, many subnational respondents expressed frustration with subgranting 

practices, particularly those linked to what were described as “trendy issues,” such as social cohesion, durable peace, and voter education. These respondents maintained that donors tended 

to engage with major national CSOs that may have considerable experience and credibility but 

not necessarily local expertise and know-how, which is to be found among grassroots (often unregistered) groups. These latter entities have been at the forefront of community organizing and 

nonviolent action campaigns on conflict-related issues such as IDPs, ethnic rights, land rights, 

natural resource exploitation, and repression of human rights defenders. A 2018 report commissioned by the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs substantiates their observations. On the 

one hand, Norway appears to be reassessing its approach to peace and democracy assistance 

in an integrative manner that combines “developmental capacity building with political support 

for peace and democracy.” On the other hand, it seems to accept the status quo of engaging 

with major CSOs, albeit with the following qualification: “There are concerns about capacity and 

competence among the humanitarian and development NGOs that are used for channelling, 

and whether they can shift their focus to political capacity building in support of political forces 

and processes vital for peace and democracy.”55

Many grassroots participants also cited negative consequences stemming from donor preferences to engage with registered CSOs at the expense of unregistered groups, including social 

movement actors who may not necessarily wish to register or face rejection upon trying.56 This 

preference can put some informal groups in a bind and reduce their opportunities for international support. A respondent from a human rights advocacy organization added:

When informal groups register 

to access international support, 

an unintended consequence is 

disconnection from communities and 

citizens—their principal sources of 

mobilization, resources, and power.
USIP.ORG SPECIAL REPORT 483 17

The unregistered organizations are facing funding constraints since [without registration] they 

are prohibited from withdrawing or transferring money through banks. Some donors also 

don’t want to fund unregistered groups . . . donors gave funding through domestic [Yangonbased] INGOs, NGOs, or multilateral institutions. These domestic funding organizations 

turned out to prioritize organizations who support the government’s policies and excluded 

those organizations who criticized government and worked for the rights of marginalized 

groups, Rohingya, and human rights issues.

When informal groups register to access international support, an unintended consequence 

is disconnection from communities and citizens—their principal sources of mobilization, resources, and power.57 A Kachin activist reflected: “Many local civic organizations are forced to 

institutionalize in order to meet donor requirements, which leads them to have less involvement 

with grassroots campaign work. That’s against the nature of civic actors. The more you bind 

them, the more they become counterproductive in civic movement work.”

Internally displaced ethnic Kachins rest at their hut in the compound of Trinity Baptist Church refugee camp in Myitkyina, 

Kachin State, northern Myanmar on May 6, 2018. (Photo by Min Kyi Thein/AP)
1 8 SPECIAL REPORT 483 USIP.ORG

Obstacles to Mobilization

In addition to contending with the challenges presented by widening divisions within Myanmar 

civil society, worsening relationships between it and the government, and their interplay with 

donor policies and practices, social movement actors face three additional obstacles to nonviolent action mobilization for accountability, good governance, democracy, peace, and equitable 

development goals.

The first of these is ethnic divisions. Many movement actors struggle to build inclusive relationships among ethnic groups, and the lack of such ties limits opportunities to form coalitions 

and develop mobilization capacity. Myanmar has 135 officially recognized ethnic groups and 

a wide variety of languages and dialects. A Kachin activist acknowledged, “In order to have a 

successful movement, the first question should be to what extent Kachin civic leaders could 

accommodate non-Kachin and give [them] the space for decision-making roles.” A Mandalay 

representative from a self-help association for ethnic minorities said that CSOs do not necessarily recognize them as a counterpart. “Some CSOs only invite us to just attend their events by 

asking us to wear ethnic costumes and to cut ribbon for opening ceremonies, etc. If they don’t 

need us, we are not invited. . . . We feel that we are just being used,” the respondent remarked.

The second obstacle is difficulty linking democratic principles to real life. Many respondents, 

including external actors, noted that there is inadequate public understanding of human rights 

and democratic principles, which creates challenges for mobilizing people for nonviolent action. 

An embassy interviewee observed that “the success of civic movements depends on the level 

of political awareness of the general public about the democratic ideology. In Myanmar, it is still 

lacking.” A political activist and political science lecturer was more upbeat, however: “In Kachin, 

there are a couple of reasons that people decide to join social movements: first is to express 

their grievances and resentment on the restriction of their freedom and on-going oppression . . .

second, they feel safe since the movement leaders are religious leaders.” His observation highlights two important factors contributing to mobilization. People are more likely to participate 

when democratic and human rights principles are contextualized to local realities and linked to 

everyday concerns, and when human rights and democratic principles are espoused by admired 

societal or community figures with credibility and legitimacy, such as elders or fearless youth.

The third obstacle is a lack of adaptability. Activists reported feeling “stuck,” that is, unable to 

adapt, learn, and change to tackle challenges such as repression, citizen apathy and fear, and 

movement sustainability. As a result, their nonviolent action efforts have been reactive rather 

than proactive. At least two factors are at play. First, they have not been widely exposed to the 

breadth of knowledge, strategies, skills, and tools that apply to building nonviolent movements, 

engaging in nonviolent action, and strengthening dialogue and negotiation. They rely on a limited number of tactics, such as demonstrations, that are more confrontational and high risk 

and thus tend not to draw in a broad population base. As the political science lecturer-activist 

from Kachin remarked, “We still need to learn a lot of nonconfrontational methods and strategic 

planning skills for sustainable movement, including how to design measures to [make our opponents’ tactics] backfire, to negotiate with others, and to use secure communication systems.”
USIP.ORG SPECIAL REPORT 483 19

Second, according to several research participants, since 

the 2015 political transition numerous CSOs and activists 

have lost their sense of identity, purpose, and some contended, even their principles. Some attributed this perception to divides between NLD supporters (who believe democracy was achieved when the NLD won the elections) 

and NLD critics (who believe the role of CSOs is to point out 

the wrongdoings of any government). Others argued that 

much of civil society has pivoted away from their original 

missions and objectives toward donor-driven priorities because they need funding. “Despite an 

increase in the number of CSOs and busy activists,” commented a local staff member from a subgranting CSO supported by an international donor, “it doesn’t contribute to the reform process; instead, CSOs lost their focus, their roles, and some are even OK if their priorities are being directed.” 

Conclusion and Recommendations 

Myanmar’s transition from military rule to democracy remains a work in progress, and advancement toward good governance, accountability, peace, and equitable development is by no 

means assured. As this report has described, civil society is not monolithic and is beset with 

divides. It must navigate amid shrinking civic space, military influence and repression, and less 

than optimal relations with the NLD government, its former ally in the democracy struggle. At the 

same time, parts of the international community are reconsidering their own strategies for engaging and supporting Myanmar’s civil society. By their own reckoning, they have overemphasized engagement with Yangon-based CSOs and provided insufficient support to grassroots 

actors to enable a strong, unified civil society to develop and to generate bottom-up pressure 

through strategic nonviolent action. 

What can civic actors—and, in particular, social movement actors—do differently to tackle the challenges they face? What can the international community do differently to help in this endeavor? The 

following synergized recommendations are designed to offer some answers to these questions. 

LOCALIZATION AND NONVIOLENT ACTION CAPACITY BUILDING

A bottom-up approach to accountability and good governance can complement top-down, 

elite-driven efforts and help strengthen democratic practices, foster a culture of trust and dialogue, and enhance citizen mobilization for nonviolent action. For this to happen, however, 

CSOs and social movement actors should refrain from approaching communities with predetermined priorities and ready-made projects driven by donors, and instead engage with local 

communities to connect accountability, democracy, good governance, peacebuilding, and development goals to people’s daily lives, concerns, and grievances. Working closely with local 

people to identify shared goals can provide the foundation for effective, collective action.58 Civic 

actors also need to build capacity in strategic nonviolent action, community organizing, tactical 

diversity, nonviolent communication, negotiation and dialogue, democratic leadership, and basic legal and organizational development skills. 

International actors should reevaluate 

approaches to fostering public 

understanding of human rights, 

democratic principles, accountability, 

and peace that are largely based on 

top-down interventions, international 

discourse, and abstract concepts.
2 0 SPECIAL REPORT 483 USIP.ORG

In turn, international actors should reevaluate approaches to fostering public understanding of human rights, democratic principles, accountability, and peace that are largely based on 

top-down interventions, international discourse, and abstract concepts. Rather than adopting 

one-size-fits-all approaches across the country, it is essential to consider subnational contexts 

and challenges. This might entail conducting periodic contextual assessments (using, for example, CARE International’s Contextual Analysis Frameworks) more frequently. Such instruments 

encompass multifaceted dimensions—including conflict sensitivity, gender mainstreaming, sustainability of civic initiatives and CSOs, and human rights indicators—that contribute to a better 

understanding of the issues and actors involved in, and the obstacles to, nonviolent action and 

citizen mobilization.59 As importantly, donors should increase engagement with smaller CSOs 

and social movement actors, and enable the development of the kinds of mobilization skills and 

capacity building that (as outlined earlier in this report) are lacking.

Digital engagement constitutes an important and complementary component of localized 

approaches. With nearly 40 percent of Myanmar’s population using Facebook for day-to-day 

communication, civic actors have an opportunity to create online, user-friendly mobile device 

platforms to raise public awareness, mobilize citizens, bridge the gap between rural and urban 

Riot police stand in position to block activists during a peace rally on May 12, 2018 in Yangon. (Photo by Thein Zaw/AP)
USIP.ORG SPECIAL REPORT 483 21

groups, and increase cross-regional collaboration.60 External actors could provide small grants 

to enable SMOs to deliver grassroots education on basic human rights, democratic values, and 

nonviolent methods via social media platforms. In addition, donors could offer modest support 

for SMOs and CSOs to collaborate on creating a practical digital civil society platform to improve 

nonviolent action, community organizing, and strategic planning skills; brainstorm innovative 

tactics; and develop protection mechanisms.

UNITY AND INCLUSION

Unity of people and goals is a fundamental principle of successful nonviolent action.61 Given that 

civic space is currently shrinking, many CSOs have recognized that working together—for example, in coalitions and networks—is necessary for survival and effective for identifying core problems, shared objectives, and common solutions. To this end, CSOs and social movement actors 

focused on similar issues need to increase strategic coordination and collaboration across geographic locations. One potential focal point at the nexus of conflict, transparency, accountability, and development is the China-Myanmar Economic Corridor to modernize Myanmar’s 

infrastructure and build economic zones, part of China’s Belt and Road Initiative.62 They should 

also adopt more innovative and diversified practices to accommodate informal organizations 

and build participation across gender, ethnicity, regions, religion, professions, and ideologies. 

This involves going beyond extending token invitations to cultivating mutual respect and trust 

among ethnic and religious minorities within minority populations, for example, the Ta-ang, Pa-O, 

Lahu, and A-Hka in Shan State. 

In conjunction, donors need to evaluate how their policies and practices inadvertently exacerbate civil society divisions. Rather than channeling grassroots support primarily through 

INGOs and national CSOs, those donors with bureaucratic flexibility could allocate a portion 

of their budgets to core funding for locally led CSOs and for modest, flexible, rapid-response 

grants for social movement actors. For bilateral institutions with administrative constraints, creative approaches could include pooled funding mechanisms with government or private donors; 

support to international nonviolent action capacity and movement building organizations and 

networks; and civil society hubs that incorporate nonviolent action into their activities.

As nonviolent action movements and campaigns have often been catalyzed by informal 

civil society actors and involve grassroots participation from marginalized communities, it is 

also crucial for external actors to expand their range of vision. Many commonly overlooked 

groups—such as faith-based organizations, labor unions, student unions, teachers’ associations, 

literary and cultural associations, LGBTI groups, community-based development groups, blood 

donation groups, funeral and ambulance service associations, and ethnic health-care service 

groups—have been vital contributors to social transformation and democratization through community-based problem solving and nonviolent action. Results from the 2019 Asian Barometer (a 

cross-national public opinion survey on democracy, political values, governance, economic reforms, and human security) suggest they are likely to remain important sources of mobilization. 

The survey found that “Myanmar citizens continue to join religious, charitable and local residential and community organizations to a greater extent than political parties and other groups.”63
2 2 SPECIAL REPORT 483 USIP.ORG

Youth (those aged fifteen to thirty-five) constitute over one-third of Myanmar’s population and, 

as illustrated in this report, are often in the vanguard of nonviolent movements and campaigns.64

Civic leaders should prioritize youth for leadership development and capacity building in nonviolent action and community organizing. In tandem, international actors can contribute to inclusive youth participation in movements and campaigns by enabling purposeful networking and 

learning. For example, donors can provide opportunities for young people and student union 

members from universities across regions and states to build ties and strengthen capacities in 

strategic planning, scenario analysis, nonviolent tactical innovation, and network building. Such 

support for students, young professionals, and young activists can be operationalized through 

short-term fellowships, leadership development programs, regional exchanges and peer-topeer learning visits, and scholarships for synergized nonviolent action and peacebuilding.

STRATEGIC ENGAGEMENT AND SOLIDARITY

Civic leaders at the subnational and local level, along with national allies, should proactively 

advocate to donors to support the emergence and sustainability of grassroots nonviolent action 

tackling governance challenges and other drivers of violent conflict. This advocacy could entail 

targeted diplomatic briefings and collaboration on international speaker bureau visits bringing 

resource persons to interact with relevant officials, MPs, academia, students, and civil society 

at the national and subnational levels. In light of the center-periphery divide, international actors in Myanmar can help amplify the issues, activities, and outcomes of social movements and 

community-based nonviolent action initiatives for both domestic and international audiences. 

They can also proactively consult with civil society, including grassroots groups, on priorities and 

practices. For instance, the EUD in Myanmar initiated a pre-programming consultation questionnaire for CSOs to gather input on its 2021–27 strategy on the “relevance, context, and priority 

needs for EU support” in five policy areas.65

Expressions of international solidarity for civic leaders, activists, organizations, and social 

movements facing repression can be invaluable, as can diplomatic pressure on the government, should those on the ground desire it. In Myanmar, such support is particularly important 

given the government’s desire for international legitimacy and the country’s weak accountability 

systems. Solidarity can be expressed in various ways, such as visiting a detainee’s family members, monitoring court hearings, releasing statements, and bestowing awards for nonviolent 

action courage, leadership, and accomplishments. In the case of the Kachin Youth Movement, 

in February 2019, while the three movement leaders were still imprisoned, the World Kachin 

Congress and the Kachin Consultative Assembly honored them with the Kachin Human Rights 

Defenders Awards.66 Among them, Nang Pu also received the United States Embassy Women 

of Change Award and the European Union‘s Schuman Award.67

International solidarity can also include enabling local civil society groups to connect to national or international networks so that those at risk become more visible, protected, and funded 

and have access to more resources. In the research for this study, local civic actors defending 

the most marginalized communities reported feeling encouraged knowing that the international 

community still stands on the side of human rights, democracy, and development. Civic actors 

and nonviolent civic initiatives focusing on politically sensitive issues such as land rights, peace, 
USIP.ORG SPECIAL REPORT 483 23

mega-development projects, environmentally and socially destructive development projects, 

and corruption are often targeted by ethnic armed organizations, militia groups, military personnel, and business stakeholders. For the most part, these grassroots changemakers work 

without any connection to mainstream media and receive little or no support from international 

organizations until they are attacked, disappeared, or murdered. 

●  ●   ●

Political transitions from authoritarianism toward democracy in fragile contexts, stimulated by 

nonviolent movements, bring optimism and opportunities to improve the lives of millions living 

with deprivation and injustice. Myanmar’s unfolding experience presents a timely case for international actors committed to supporting accountability, good governance, human rights, equitable development, and an end to armed conflict. Civil society actors and social movements are 

actively engaged in using nonviolent action to counter emergent restrictions, push for genuine 

political reforms and peace, and tackle the legacy of problems inherited from years of autocratic 

rule. But those actors and movements face formidable challenges, some of them inadvertently 

exacerbated by donor policies and practices. Myanmar’s transition will be more likely to lead to 

a sustainable democratic consolidation if international actors increase their outreach to grassroots actors, localize priorities, provide flexible financial and nonfinancial forms of support, and 

strengthen solidarity with civil society, including social movements.
2 4 SPECIAL REPORT 483 USIP.ORG

Notes

1. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, “Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human 

Rights in Myanmar,” advanced unedited version, March 4, 2020, www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/SP/CountriesMandates/MM/Pages

/SRMyanmar.aspx.

2. At the subnational level, Myanmar is divided into seven Bamar regions and seven ethnic states.

3. See Sam McCann, “Amid Ethnic Cleansing in Myanmar, Where Does Traditional Justice Stand?,” International Center for 

Transitional Justice, September 25, 2007, www.ictj.org/news/myanmar-rohingya-ethnic-cleansing-transitional-justice; and Melvyn 

Mackay, “The Religious Landscape in Myanmar’s Rakhine State,” Peaceworks no. 149, United States Institute of Peace, August 

2019, www.usip.org/publications/2019/08/religious-landscape-myanmars-rakhine-state.

4. Nadine Bloch and Lisa Schirch, Synergizing Nonviolent Action and Peacebuilding (SNAP): An Action Guide (Washington: United 

States Institute of Peace Press, 2018), 8.

5. Bloch and Schirch, Synergizing Nonviolent Action and Peacebuilding, 19.

6. For additional information about the social movement landscape, see Gladys Hlatywayo and Charles Mangongera, “The 

Challenges for Social Movements in Post-Mugabe Zimbabwe,” Special Report no. 460, United States Institute of Peace, January 

2020, 7, www.usip.org/publications/2020/01/challenges-social-movements-post-mugabe-zimbabwe.

7. Bruce Wallace, Sarah Kate Kramer, and Joe Richman, “As Myanmar Opens Up, a Look Back on a 1988 Uprising,” National Public 

Radio, August 8, 2013, www.npr.org/2013/08/08/209919791/as-myanmar-opens-up-a-look-back-on-a-1988-uprising.

8. Alexa Ross and Evan Abrams, “Burmese/Myanmar Monks Campaign for Democracy (Saffron Revolution), 2007,” Nonviolent 

Action Database, Swarthmore College, 2010, https://nvdatabase.swarthmore.edu/content/burmese-myanmar-monks-campaign

-democracy-saffron-revolution-2007.

9. Julian Kirchherr, “Strategies of Successful Anti-Dam Movements: Evidence from Myanmar and Thailand,” Society and Natural 

Resources 31 (2018): 170–74.

10. Min Thein Aung and Zin Mar Win, “Hundreds Protest Pipeline in Burma’s Rakhine State,” Radio Free Asia, April 18, 2013, 

www.rfa.org/english/news/myanmar/pipeline-04182013175129.html; and Human Rights Watch, “Burma: China-Led Oil, Gas 

Protests Spark Arrests,” May 11, 2013, www.hrw.org/news/2013/05/11/burma-china-led-oil-gas-projects-spark-arrests.

11. Kristian Stokke, Roman Vakulchuk, and Indra Øverland, “Myanmar: A Political Economy Analysis,” Norwegian Institute of 

International Affairs, February 6, 2018, www.nupi.no/en/Publications/CRIStin-Pub/Myanmar-A-Political-Economy-Analysis.

12. Medea Savary, “Don’t Forget Us Says Displaced Farmer in Kachin, Myanmar,” UN High Commissioner for Refugees, June 4, 

2014, www.unhcr.org/news/stories/2014/6/538f25be6/dont-forget-says-displaced-farmer-kachin-state-myanmar.html.

13. Helen Regan, “’What Future Do We Have?’ Caught in the Crossfire of Myanmar’s Northern Conflict, Civilians See Little Hope,” 

Time, May 3, 2018, www.time.com/5263930/myanmar-kachin-fighting-displaced-humanitarian-aid.

14. “Time to Hear Our Voices: Freedom of Assembly and the Youth Peace Movement in Myanmar,” Progressive Voice (Myanmar), 

July 2018, www.progressivevoicemyanmar.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/PV_Briefing_Final_Web.pdf.

15. “Time to Hear Our Voices,” Progressive Voice.

16. Ye Mon, “Kachin Youth Activists Handed Prison Sentences for ‘Defaming’ the Tatmadaw,” Frontier Myanmar, December 7, 2018, 

www.frontiermyanmar.net/en/kachin-youth-activists-handed-prison-sentences-for-defaming-the-tatmadaw.

17. Amnesty International, “Myanmar: Drop Charges against Three Kachin Activists,” October 15, 2018, www.amnesty.org/en/documents

/asa16/9244/2018/en; and Kachin Alliance, “Drop Criminal Defamation Charges against Kachin Activists,” press release posted on 

Facebook, October 22, 2018, www.facebook.com/kachinalliance/photos/a.495247637167382/2756020341090089.

18. Elizabeth Jangma, “Kachin Protest Jailing of Peace Activists Convicted of Defaming Myanmar Military,” Radio Free Asia, 

December 11, 2018, www.rfa.org/english/news/myanmar/kachins-protest-jailing-of-peace-activists-12112018145821.html.

19. The movement #SayNoTo66(d) (www.saynoto66d.info) recorded 210 criminal complaints under Article 66(d) of the 

Telecommunications Law between November 2015 and mid-December 2019.

20. Victoria Milko, “Tracking 66(d),” Frontier Myanmar, April 20, 2018, www.frontiermyanmar.net/en/tracking-66d.

21. Htet Soe Lin, “18 CSOs formed coalition to protect Freedom of Expression,” Myanmar Times, February 29, 2020, 

https://myanmar.mmtimes.com/news/135992.html.

22. Nadine Bloch, “The Arts of Protest: Creative Cultural Resistance,” webinar, International Center on Nonviolent Conflict, June 30, 

2011, www.nonviolent-conflict.org/the-arts-of-protest-creative-cultural-resistance.

23. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, slam poetry is “a form of performance poetry that combines the elements of 

performance, writing, competition, and audience participation.”
USIP.ORG SPECIAL REPORT 483 25

24. Delegation of the European Union to Myanmar, “EU’s 2020 Schuman Awards in Myanmar Celebrate Courage in Fighting for 

Freedom and for Others,” February 19, 2020, https://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/myanmar-burma_en/74900/EU%E2%80

%99s2020SchumanAwardsinMyanmarcelebratecourageinfightingforfreedomandforothers.

25. Tint Zaw Tun, “Myanmar Performers Get More Jail Terms for Making Fun of Military,” Myanmar Times, June 13, 2020, 

www.mmtimes.com/news/myanmar-performers-get-more-jail-terms-making-fun-military.html. 

26. CIVICUS, “Letter from Jail: Members of Poetry Troupe in Myanmar,” November 15, 2019, www.civicus.org/index.php/media

-resources/news/interviews/4168-letter-from-jail-members-of-poetry-troupe-in-myanmar.

27. Stokke, Vakulchuk, and Øverland, “Myanmar,” 27.

28. Linda Lakhdhir, “Dashed Hopes: The Criminalization of Peaceful Expression in Myanmar,” Human Rights Watch, February 2019, 

www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/report_pdf/myanmar0119_web3.pdf.

29. Thinzar Shunlei Yi, “Myanmar: Under the Name of Democracy, the Military Rules,” CIVICUS, www. civicus.org/index.php/re

-imagining-democracy/stories-from-the-frontlines/3422-myanmar-under-the-name-of-democracy-the-military-rules.

30. Susanne Kempel, “Myanmar’s Forgotten Local Elections,” Myanmar Times, February 16, 2016, www.mmtimes.com/opinion/19009

-myanmar-s-forgotten-local-elections.html. 

31. Stokke, Vakulchuk, and Øverland, “Myanmar,” 28.

32. Stokke, Vakulchuk, and Øverland, “Myanmar,” 28.

33. 2018 Civil Society Organization Sustainability Index for Asia, 5th ed. (Washington: US Agency for International Development, 

November 2019).

34. Free Expression Myanmar, “No Permission to Protest: In-depth Analysis of Violations of the Right to Protest across Myanmar,” 

March 2020, www.freeexpressionmyanmar.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/no-permission-to-protest.pdf.

35. Roseanne Gerin, “Two Antiwar Protesters Sentenced for Unlawful Assembly in Myanmar’s Mandalay,” Radio Free Asia, 

May 22, 2018, www.rfa.org/english/news/myanmar/two-antiwar-protsters-sentenced-for-unlawful-assembly-in-myanmars

-mandalay-05222018152758.html?searchterm:utf8:ustring=%20myanmar%20public%20assembly%20law.

36. Kyaw Phone Kyaw, “The Healing of Meiktila,” Frontier Myanmar, April 21, 2016, www.frontiermyanmar.net/en/the-healing-meiktila.

37. See “The Law Relating to Registration of Organizations (Pyidaungsu Hluttaw Law No. 31),” www.burmalibrary.org/docs23/2014

-07-18-Association_Registration_Law-en.pdf.

38. 2018 Civil Society Organization Sustainability Index for Asia.

39. 2018 Civil Society Organization Sustainability Index for Asia.

40. Lakhdhir, “Dashed Hopes,” 1.

41. Athan, “2019 Mid-year Report on Status of Freedom of Expression in Myanmar,” November 4, 2019, www.athanmyanmar.org

/2019-mid-year-report.

42. See “The Telecommunications Law (The Pyidaungsu Hluttaw Law No. 31, 2013),” www.burmalibrary.org/docs23/2013-10-08

-Telecommunications_Law-en.pdf.

43. Athan, “Mid-term Report on Freedom of Expression,” October 2018, https://drive.google.com/file/d

/1yVzXDLbB-v12cft44ljFbqIX7H-Qe_oc/view.

44. Pyae Thet Phyo, “Amendments to Assembly Bill Approved by Amyotha Hluttaw,” Myanmar Times, March 8, 2018, www.mmtimes

.com/news/amendments-assembly-bill-approved-amyotha-hluttaw.html.

45. See “Myanmar: The Penal Code,” www.burmalibrary.org/docs6/MYANMAR_PENAL_CODE-corr.1.pdf.

46. See “The Unlawful Associations Act [India Act XIV, 1908.] (11th December 1908)],” www.burmalibrary.org/docs09/UNLAWFUL

_ASSOCIATIONS_ACT.pdf.

47. Progressive Voice, “Bridging the Domestic Accountability Gap,” August 7, 2019, www.progressivevoicemyanmar.org/2019/08/07

/bridging-the-domestic-accountability-gap.

48. Mratt Kyaw Thu, “The Ugly Return of Vigilante Violence,” Frontier Myanmar, June 28, 2018, www.frontiermyanmar.net/en/the

-ugly-return-of-vigilante-violence.

49. USIP, for instance, has published a series of reports on external actor support for social movements working to foster transparency, 

accountability, and good governance. In addition to Hlatywayo and Mangongera (cited in note 6), they include: Samson Itodo and 

Davin O’Regan, “Nigeria’s Movement for Transparency and Accountability: Bringing the Pieces Together,” Special Report no. 433, 

October 29, 2018, www.usip.org/publications/2018/10/nigerias-movement-transparency-and-accountability; Olena Tregub, “Ukrainian 

Activism for Transparency and Accountability: Two Steps Forward, One Step Back,” Special Report 

no. 448, May 27, 2019, www.usip.org/publications/2019/05/ukrainian-activism-transparency-and-accountability-two-steps-forward

-one-step; Davin O’Regan, “Donor Assistance in the Transparency and Accountability Movement,” Peaceworks no. 151, September 24, 
2 6 SPECIAL REPORT 483 USIP.ORG

2019, www.usip.org/index.php/publications/2019/09/donor-assistance-transparency-and-accountability-movement; and Husein Khalid 

and Tabatha Thompson, “Conflict Prevention in Kenya: Combating Corruption through Nonviolent Action,” Special Report no. 456, 

September 25, 2019, www.usip.org/publications/2019/09/conflict-prevention-kenya-combating-corruption-through-nonviolent-action.

50. Abigail Bellows, “Bridging the Elite-Grassroots Divide among Anticorruption Activists,” working paper, Carnegie Endowment for 

International Peace, January 7, 2020, www.carnegieendowment.org/2020/01/07/bridging-elite-grassroots-divide-among

-anticorruption-activists-pub-80687.

51. Stokke, Vakulchuk, and Øverland, “Myanmar.”

52. Thomas Carr, “Supporting the Transition: Understanding Aid to Myanmar since 2011,” Asia Foundation, February 2018, 

www.think-asia.org/handle/11540/8091.

53. European Union External Action, “The European Strategy for a Strengthened Partnership with Civil Society in Myanmar,” 

August 2018, 8, https://eeas.europa.eu/sites/eeas/files/eu-cso_partnership_strategy_2018-2020.pdf.

54. European Union External Action, “The European Strategy,” 9, 20. 

55. Stokke, Vakulchuk, and Øverland, “Myanmar,” 7.

56. Paung Sie Facility, “Unlocking Civil Society and Peace in Myanmar: Opportunities, Obstacles, and Undercurrents,” 2018, 

www.paungsiefacility.org/uploads/3/0/1/8/30181835/civilsocietyreport_18oct_medres.pdf.

57. Bellows, “Bridging the Elite-Grassroots Divide.”

58. Shaazka Beyerle and Davin O’Regan, “Overcoming Hurdles to Citizen Activism for Fiscal Governance,” International Budget 

Partnership, April 17, 2019, www.internationalbudget.org/2019/04/fiscal-futures-citizen-activism-for-fiscal-governance.

59. “Contextual Analysis Frameworks” are part of CARE’s online Emergency Toolkit (www.careemergencytoolkit.org/management

/4-assessment/11-data-analysis-and-recommendations/11-1-contextual-analysis-frameworks). Conflict sensitivity assessments seek 

to minimize unintended negative effects of an external actor’s programs and projects (see Swedish International Development 

Cooperation Agency, “How To Assess Conflict Sensitivity in Programme/Project Proposals,” 2018, www.sida.se/contentassets

/69bb013c27e64cfcb8b6c6e05aeb71ab/conflict-sensitivity.pdf).

60. Deutsche Welle, “Myanmar’s Digital Access Boom Poses Challenges,” interview with Thomas Bärthlein, September 5, 2019, 

www.dw.com/en/myanmars-digital-access-boom-poses-challenges/a-48367081-0.

61. Peter Ackerman and Hardy Merriman, “The Checklist for Ending Tyranny,” in Is Authoritarianism Staging a Comeback?, ed. 

Mathew Burrows and Maria J. Stephan (Washington: Atlantic Council, 2015), 63–80.

62. Priscilla Clapp, “The Intersection of Investment and Conflict in Myanmar,” Special Report no. 463, United States Institute of 

Peace, February 2020, www.usip.org/index.php/publications/2020/02/intersection-investment-and-conflict-myanmar.

63. Bridget Welsh et al., Myanmar: Grappling with Transition: 2019 Asia Barometer Survey Report (Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia: 

Strategic Information and Research Development Centre, 2020), xiv.

64. “Myanmar Youth Policy Released,” Global New Light of Myanmar, January 6, 2018, www.globalnewlightof myanmar.com

/myanmar-youth-policy-released. 

65. EU Delegation Myanmar, “Pre-Programming Consultations with CSO on 2021-2027 Strategy,” June 2020, copy in author’s files.

66. “Three Kachin Activists Awarded ‘Mushe Award,’” Kachin Land News, February 13, 2019, www.kachinland news.com/?p=29350.

67. European Union, “EU’s 2019 Schuman Awards Pay Tribute to Gender, Peace, and Human Rights Champions in Myanmar,” 

February 14, 2019, https://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/peru/58157/eu%E2%80%99s-2019-schuman-awards-pay-tribute-gender

-peace-and-human-rights-champions-myanmar_en; and US Embassy in Myanmar, “U.S. Embassy Announces 2019 Winners of 

Women of Change Award in Myanmar,” March 18, 2019, https://mm.usembassy.gov/u-s-embassy-announces-2019-winners-of

-women-of-change-award-in-myanmar.
USIP.ORG SPECIAL REPORT 483 27

The United States Institute of Peace is a national, 

nonpartisan, independent institute, founded by Congress 

and dedicated to the proposition that a world without 

violent conflict is possible, practical, and essential for US 

and global security. In conflict zones abroad, the Institute 

works with local partners to prevent, mitigate, and resolve 

violent conflict. To reduce future crises and the need 

for costly interventions, USIP works with governments 

and civil societies to help their countries solve their own 

problems peacefully. The Institute provides expertise, 

training, analysis, and support to those who are working 

to build a more peaceful, inclusive world.

ABOUT THE INSTITUTE

Stephen J. Hadley (Chair), Principal, Rice, Hadley, Gates & Manuel LLC, Washington, DC •

George E. Moose (Vice Chair), Adjunct Professor of Practice, The George Washington 

University, Washington, DC • Judy Ansley, Former Assistant to the President and Deputy 

National Security Advisor under George W. Bush, Washington, DC • Eric Edelman, Roger 

Hertog Practitioner in Residence, Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International 

Studies, Washington, DC • Joseph Eldridge, Distinguished Practitioner, School of International 

Service, American University, Washington, DC • Kerry Kennedy, President, Robert F. Kennedy 

Human Rights, Washington, DC • Ikram U. Khan, President, Quality Care Consultants, LLC, 

Las Vegas, NV • Stephen D. Krasner, Graham H. Stuart Professor of International Relations, 

Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA • John A. Lancaster, Former Executive Director, National 

Council on Independent Living, Potsdam, NY • Jeremy A. Rabkin, Professor of Law, Antonin 

Scalia Law School, George Mason University, Arlington, VA • J. Robinson West, Former 

Chairman, PFC Energy, Washington, DC • Nancy Zirkin, Executive Vice President, Leadership 

Conference on Civil and Human Rights, Washington, DC 

Members Ex Officio

Mike Pompeo, Secretary of State • Mark T. Esper, Secretary of Defense • Frederick J. Roegge, 

Vice Admiral, US Navy; President, National Defense University • Joe Lataille, Acting President; 

Chief Financial Officer, United States Institute of Peace (nonvoting)

BOARD OF DIRECTORS
2 8 SPECIAL REPORT 483 USIP.ORG

2301 Constitution Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20037

(202) 457-1700

www.USIP.org

Since its inception in 1991, the United States Institute of Peace Press has published 

hundreds of influential books, reports, and briefs on the prevention, management, and 

peaceful resolution of international conflicts. All our books and reports arise from research 

and fieldwork sponsored by the Institute’s many programs, and the Press is committed to 

expanding the reach of the Institute’s work by continuing to publish significant and sustainable 

publications for practitioners, scholars, diplomats, and students. Each work undergoes 

thorough peer review by external subject experts to ensure that the research and conclusions 

are balanced, relevant, and sound.

OTHER USIP PUBLICATIONS

THE UNITED STATES INSTITUTE OF PEACE PRESS

• Curbing Corruption after Conflict: Anticorruption Mobilization in Guatemala by Walter 

Flores and Miranda Rivers (Special Report, September 2020)

• North Korean Phone Money: Airtime Transfers as a Precursor to Mobile Payment System

by Yonho Kim (Special Report, September 2020)

• Lessons Learned in the Search for COVID-19 Ceasefires by Tyler Jess Thompson (Special 

Report, September 2020)

• How to Engage the Enemy: The Case for National Security Diplomacy with North Korea

by Van Jackson (Special Report, September 2020)

• Preventing Sexual Exploitation and Abuse by Male Peacekeepers by Jessica Anania, 

Angelina Mendes, and Robert U. Nagel (Special Report, September 2020)