Illiberal Peacebuilding in a Hybrid Regime: An In-depth Study of Myanmar's Conflict Dynamics

Illiberal Peacebuilding in Myanmar: A Detailed Analysis

Authors and Affiliations

• Kristian Stokke - Department of Sociology and Human Geography, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

• Klo Kwe Moo Kham - Independent Scholar, Yangon, Myanmar

• Nang K.L. Nge - Independent Scholar

• Silje Hvilsom Kvanvik - Department of Sociology and Human Geography, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

Article Information

Keywords

• Armed conflict and state fragmentation

• Illiberal peacebuilding strategies

• Conflict containment vs. resolution

• Peace geography and spatial control

• Hybrid regime transitions

• Myanmar (Burma)

Abstract

The post-Cold War era saw the hegemony of liberal peacebuilding, a framework pushing liberal democracy and market liberalization as the cures for internal conflict. Today, a global decline in this model has paved the way for domestic illiberal peacebuilding, where local elites prioritize stability and state authority over human rights and democratic inclusion. This article provides an in-depth case study of Myanmar, examining how the military (Tatmadaw) utilizes a combination of coercive violence and strategic co-optation to neutralize armed resistance. By analyzing historical military strategies and the failure of post-$2011$ reforms, the study argues that Myanmar\'s peace processes are instruments of state-building and territorial control rather than genuine attempts at reconciliation.

Introduction

The discourse on peacebuilding has shifted from the optimism of the $1990s$ to a pragmatic and often cynical focus on stability. Chandler ($2017$) notes that the liberal peace model relied on the assumption that external interventions could engineer state institutions to foster peace (Jarstad \& Sisk, $2008$). However, the failure of these interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere has led to a "crisis of liberal peace," characterized by a decline in the liberal world order (Acharya, $2017$). In this vacuum, illiberal strategies emerge, where peace is redefined as the absence of active rebellion through authoritarian management rather than social justice.

Theoretical Framework: Geographies of Peace

This analysis employs a "geographies of peace" lens, which posits that peace is not a static condition but a spatially produced reality (Megoran, $211$; Koopman, $2018$). In Myanmar, this manifests as:

• Spatial Containment: Restricting movement and influence of Ethnic Armed Organizations (EAOs).

• Territorial Integration: Using infrastructure and development projects to integrate restive borderlands into the central state\'s logic.

Decline of Liberal Peacebuilding

Historical Context and Rise

Liberal peacebuilding gained prominence following the collapse of the Soviet Union, asserting that universal human rights were the foundation of global security. It emphasized a "top-down" approach, where international actors like the UN or Western NGOs would facilitate transitions via elections and privatization.

Diverse Approaches and Critiques

• $1990s$ Liberalization: Focused heavily on rapid democratization and marketization.

• $2000s$ State-Building: Shifted toward strengthening the executive and security apparatuses to prevent "failed states" (Paris, $2004$).

• Critiques: Neo-Marxian and Foucauldian scholars argue that liberal peacebuilding is a form of "biopolitical control" that imposes Western values while ignoring local histories of grievance and identity (Duffield, $2001$; Mac Ginty, $2011$).

Illiberal Peacebuilding Dynamics

Definitions and Key Elements

Illiberal peacebuilding is defined by several core characteristics:

1. Dominance of Domestic Actors: Rejection of Western "peace conditionality."

2. Clientelism: Distributing economic favors to elites in exchange for loyalty, rather than fostering open market competition.

3. Hegemonic Stability: Peace is viewed as the successful assertion of state sovereignty over all territories (Smith et al., $2020$).

Military Statebuilding in Myanmar

Historical Evolution of Conflict

Myanmar\'s internal wars are rooted in the failure of the $1947$ Panglong Agreement, which promised ethnic autonomy. Since the $1962$ coup, the Tatmadaw has viewed itself as the only institution capable of preventing the "disintegration of the union." This led to decades of warfare against groups like the Karen National Union (KNU) and the Communist Party of Burma (CPB).

Coercion and Ceasefire Capitalism

Since the late $1980s$, the military has employed a dual-track strategy:

• Military Offensives: Using the "Four Cuts" strategy to sever EAOs from their food, funds, intelligence, and recruits.

• Ceasefire Capitalism: A term coined by Kevin Woods ($2011$) to describe how the state grants EAO leaders lucrative logging, mining, and jade concessions in exchange for stopping the fighting. This co-opts the elites but often displaces local populations and destroys ecosystems, fueling further resentment.

Contemporary Peacebuilding Efforts ($2011-2021$)

The Hybrid Regime and the 2008 Constitution

The transition in $2011$ to the Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP) was not a full democratization but a shift to a hybrid regime. The $2008$ Constitution ensured military dominance by:

• Reserving $25\%$ of parliamentary seats for the military (granting a veto over constitutional changes).

• Giving the Commander-in-Chief control over the Ministries of Defense, Home Affairs, and Border Affairs.

The Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement (NCA)

The NCA process, initiated in $2015$, was marketed as a step toward a federal union. However, it functioned as an illiberal tool by demanding EAOs submit to the state\'s legal framework before political issues were resolved. It effectively fragmented ethnic alliances by creating "signatories" and "non-signatories."

The 2021 Coup and Total State Militarization

The February $2021$ coup ended the façade of the hybrid regime. The subsequent crackdown on the Civil Disobedience Movement (CDM) and the rise of People\'s Defense Forces (PDFs) represent a collapse of illiberal management into pure state terror (Lewis et al., $2018$).

Conclusion

Myanmar\'s experience demonstrates that peacebuilding can be a tool of authoritarian consolidation. The military\'s systematic use of ceasefire agreements and economic clientelism serves to manage conflict rather than resolve its underlying causes. For peace to be sustainable, future frameworks must move beyond the illiberal-liberal binary to address local demands for genuine federalism and restorative justice.

References

• Detailed academic bibliography available upon request according to Harvard/APA standards.