Moe Thuzar

A year ago, Aung San Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy (NLD) swept parliamentary elections in Myanmar, attaining a supermajority in the combined legislature and taking over government leadership from Thein Sein’s Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP).

Six months after officially taking office, many are looking at Suu Kyi and the NLD for signs of progress on Myanmar’s many challenges. The Diplomat asked Moe Thuzar, a fellow and lead researcher at the ASEAN Studies Center of the ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute in Singapore, about the new government’s performance, the military’s evolving role in Myanmar’s politics, and how the NLD is managing the country’s challenges.

The Diplomat: How would you assess the performance of the NLD government thus far, almost a year after its historic election victory in Myanmar?

Moe Thuzar: It has been about six months since the NLD government was sworn in on March, 30, 2016. Since then, the NLD government has systematically laid the groundwork to implement the priority of establishing and ensuring political and economic stability. In view of the significant legacy issues, some that have festered since independence, this has not been an easy task despite the overwhelming support that the ruling party – and the government – continues to enjoy since its election victory.

For example, the Rakhine issue has festered over decades mainly due to broken trust and negative socialization on both sides. A decades-long issue will not disappear overnight, but the NLD government has taken constructive steps to bridging the trust divide, and also recognizes the relevance of international advisory input. Similarly, moving forward with the ceasefire negotiations required a delicate calibration of priorities by the team of negotiators representing the NLD government, which is now leading the process. The National Reconciliation and Peace Center, which serves as a secretariat to the overall peace process, has a stronger accountability commitment from the government.

Though Myanmar is being led by the NLD government, the military still wields significant power. How would you assess the role of the military in Myanmar today, and what kind of evolution do you think we will see with respect to this in the future?

I believe the military is aware of the exigencies that a transformation toward democracy requires, and is adjusting to the new role expected of it as part of Myanmar’s political transformation. This will require transforming the role of the military to one more suited to a peacetime army. While some steps have been taken to build capacities to that end, there will be a longer adjustment process. This is because the military in Myanmar has been the single-most organized institution in the country for decades and has permeated into the country’s political and economic life. For example, the current Constitution of Myanmar gives a leading political role for the military, with appointed seats in the country’s parliament. Two military-operated economic conglomerates also continue to operate profitable industries.

One of the key domestic issues that the NLD government is grappling with is the peace process. What kind of progress have we seen so far, and what are the prospects for advances to be made over the next few years?

To engage multiple stakeholders with different expectations in a constructive political dialogue is no small feat. This is what Daw Suu’s 21st century Panglong Conference has started and there is a commitment to continue with the political dialogue, which was the aim of the previous government in its handover of the peace process to the new government. Negotiating a lasting peace and moving toward a federal government system inevitably involve power-sharing and resource-sharing discussions. The NLD government has inherited the task of discussing details under the current negotiating framework. Entrenching a federal reform process in the context of the peace negotiations will require considerable time and effort, given Myanmar’s unique historical, societal, and economic circumstances. The trust capital that Daw Suu enjoys among the ethnic leaders is a plus for making headway in the negotiations. At the same time, Myanmar’s lawmakers and policymakers alike also need to be thoroughly acquainted with the responsibilities and competences that federal governance entails.

Myanmar has been active on the foreign policy front as well, with Aung San Suu Kyi completing trips to several countries, including the United States and China. Although it is still early days, how would you characterize the foreign policy approach and priorities of the NLD government, and to what extent does it represent continuity and change with the past?

Daw Suu mentioned quite early on the intent to continue with the foreign policy that, in her view, had worked well since independence. What we are seeing now is a more realistic (and strategic) expression of the independent and non-aligned foreign policy, balancing the competing interests of external partners. Consistent with her emphasis on rule of law in Myanmar, Daw Suu has also stressed the importance of a rules-based ASEAN, especially in the Association’s bilateral and multilateral partnerships. With Daw Suu at the helm of Myanmar’s foreign policy, there are new beginnings and new directions for the country’s neutralist foreign policy and for a larger regional and international role.

What are some of the key challenges you think that the government will face for the rest of its term up to the next election in 2020?

I would look at the present government’s term up to 2020 in the context of systematically implementing the main commitments made by President Htin Kyaw in his inaugural speech. The priorities centred around peace and national reconciliation, moving toward a federal democracy, and improving the lives of people. The priorities are also an acknowledgement of the challenges that the NLD government inherited from the overall transition process started by the reforms initiated in 2011, namely continuing political dialogue toward a lasting end to the decades-long conflict with ethnic armed groups; entrenching democratic institutions after decades of authoritarian rule; and opening up the economy with diversified external partnerships.