There are two usual narratives in talking about History of Myanmar.


The first view is about General Aung San and the AFPFL group. They fought against the British colonial system and the Japanese. They worked together with ethnic nationalists on military and political matters. People say they boldly formed the Union with great effort.

The second view is different. It says "Mainland Burma" not only took independence but also military leaders expanded their power into ethnic regions. They forced the country together against the people's will.


Later, a new idea appeared in the "mainland" political mainstream. Politicians followed this trend. They said, "The civil war happened only because of the military." They usually blamed the army alone for the original cause. This created a new story based on moral superiority.


None of these views are completely correct.


We must look at a country's internal affairs based on its past events. People analyze these events differently. It is like watching a movie with different glasses. Everyone focuses on different things. For Myanmar politics, I see four main groups. We can list them like this:

  • Views based on political beliefs and ideology.
  • Views based on history.
  • Views based on institutions, agreements, and groups.
  • Views based on practical benefits.


We can analyze these different approaches. One person can see more than one viewpoint. I will explain this a little more.

  • Some people look through political beliefs. Communists see history as oppressors versus the oppressed. Nationalists focus on their own group's strength. "Democracy Romantics" think democracy will solve every problem. Others focus on human rights and liberal standards.
  • Some people focus on history. They talk about ethnic history or peoples' history. They criticize false history made by the state. They also look at local legends and personal records.
  • Some people focus on institutions. They talk about treaties, declarations, and laws. They look at how different groups were formed.
  • Some people focus on practical benefits. They ask if a system is good for the economy or society. They analyze the pros and cons of the bureaucracy. They think like technicians.


Politicians need to see all angles. Before explaining these, I want to describe Myanmar's journey based on facts. People have told these histories in every era. However, mainstream politicians seem often ignore history and existing institutions. Their sense of responsibility is weak. Bamar political leaders often say, "We (as present people) did not make those promises." They only take the politics of General Aung San and Daw Aung San Suu Kyi into account. They ignore the broken promises of other politicians, like the ones from AFPFL. They accept the legitimacy but avoid the responsibility. Many liberals talk about individual human rights. But they do not value promises about group rights. Therefore, real politicians must ask themselves a question. Have I thought about this from every angle? To answer this, they must understand all viewpoints.


We want everyone to read from the same "political page." To do this, we need to consider a study framework based on facts.