The courts- new entity

- Semblance of legal legitimacy

Myanmar – formerly known as Burma

- went to the UK
- Military Junta since 1962 (essentially it was uninterrupted)
- Struggling to be democratic

History of Myanmar (Naypyidaw)

- Burmese population are fragmented
- Infertile land in Bruma
government was merely directed to keep peace

How can we interpret the Burmese military Junta to democratize?

- Optimism flourished in the Burmese society
- Suspicious establishment of democratization since there was no crisis–there was
stability
1962–present- military Junta started to become a political force
- After WW2 – military government was given independence from the UK
- The independence of these ethnic groups was not developed
- Uninterrupted political dominance of the military Junta
- 2011 2021- just to have democrcy hoping that the economic sanctions would bee lifted –
hoping that the people would stop in dissentin
- Backslide– development of human rights groups.
-
Coup by General Ne Win
- Aung San Suu Kyi – was silent during military
- Aung San Chit– didn't care about the people
- Represent the elite yet limited capability to unite
- Arrest lukewarm
- Favored actor – military – since Aug san chit cannot solve
poverty nor solve civil conflict in the Burmese society

Dan Slater
- Introduced Burma's double-edged detente – relaxation of policies/ tendencies – positive
development
- Instead of democratization- the relaxation led to the emergence of a more powerful
military Junta
- Hoping that economic sanctions would
- Created flawed democracy – created new structure
- Political analysts (simple analysis of the maneuver of the Junta military)-- merely focused
on the positive side
- No longer keep the Junta government liable for actions
 - Myanmar was unaffected by the economic sanctions of the US since its economic
interests are diversified in Russia and China (opened trade bet. these countries)
- The relaxation of the repressive policies and measures is intendedly caused by the
military

The case of Myanmar tells us of how political reforms can be seen as a complex
confidence game. In Myanmar, we can see that the democratic reforms of 2011 are
mere strategic moves for the military junta to stay in power. In this paper, Slate lays
down three types of confidence that are crucial in understanding this change:

a.) immunity confidence (expectation that they wont be punished for their past abuses)

b.) stability confidence (expectation that political stability is will be preserved under
democratic conditions)

c.) victory confidence (expectation that their current position will give them the
advantage in winning elections)

- Despite democratization strategy, military can still win in the elections

- Intellectual elites are not that strong

To him, the victory confidence explains why the junta decided to open the democratic
space to National League for Democracy (NLD) in 2012. This is meant to prepare the
Junta through the Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP) in the coming
elections like in 2015.