Guest contributor

James Shwe

As Myanmar continues to grapple with the aftermath of the 2021 military coup and ongoing civil unrest, well-intentioned advocates are exploring various avenues to promote democracy in the beleaguered nation. 

However, a concerning trend has emerged: some groups are considering using religious freedom as a primary vehicle to gain access to the U.S. administration and advocate for Myanmar’s democratic future. This approach, while seemingly pragmatic, is fundamentally flawed and potentially harmful to the very cause it aims to support. 

Myanmar’s complex tapestry of ethnic and religious diversity demands a nuanced and inclusive approach to advocacy. The country’s population is predominantly Buddhist (87.9%), with significant Christian (6.2%), Muslim (4.3%), and other religious minorities.

By focusing solely on religious issues, advocates risk oversimplifying the multifaceted challenges facing Myanmar and could inadvertently alienate key stakeholders crucial for sustainable democratic reform. 

The military’s long-standing “divide and rule” strategy has expertly exploited religious and ethnic differences to maintain power. They have stoked Buddhist nationalist sentiments, supported ultra-nationalist monks who promote hate speech, and exploited crises like the Rohingya situation to undermine civilian government and international support. 

Recent reports indicate that the military has even attempted to arm and recruit Rohingya groups to create conflicts with other ethnic armed organizations, further complicating the situation.

This divide-and-rule tactic was inadvertently reinforced by single-issue advocates who sidelined the main issue of addressing the military dictatorship problem.

Any advocacy strategy that emphasizes religious divisions plays directly into the military’s hands, potentially exacerbating existing tensions and fueling resentment among communities. For instance, the military’s exploitation of the Rohingya crisis not only led to a humanitarian disaster but also undermined international support for the civilian government.

Moreover, recent U.S. administrations have had inconsistent approaches to religious freedom issues globally. Attempting to leverage religious connections for political gain could be seen as opportunistic and may not yield the desired results. It could also create a perception of favoritism, potentially delegitimizing broader efforts to promote inclusive democracy in Myanmar. 

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) released its Country Update: Religious Freedom Conditions in Burma in October. It recommends that the U.S. government’s engagement with the Burmese opposition, including the National Unity Government (NUG) and Ethnic Armed Organizations (EAOs), be contingent upon prioritizing religious freedom issues—expressly voluntary repatriation and restored citizenship for the Rohingya community—as a prerequisite for recognition and substantial engagement.

We believe this recommendation is problematic for several reasons:

• It is not practically feasible given Burma’s current political and military situation.
• It could seriously undermine the ongoing pro-democracy revolution. 
• It overlooks the progress already made by opposition forces in addressing minority rights. 
• It fails to consider the broader context of religious persecution affecting multiple communities in Burma.

This clearly demonstrates that advocacy strategies emphasizing religious divisions and single group issues are not very beneficial for the revolution holistically.

Instead, a more effective approach would involve:

1. Addressing multiple aspects of human rights and democratic governance simultaneously, including freedom of expression, assembly, and political participation.
2. Engaging with diverse stakeholders, including ethnic and religious minorities, civil society organizations, diaspora groups not affiliated with political activist organizations, and international partners.
3. Emphasizing shared values of democracy, human rights, and inclusive governance that benefit all of Myanmar’s communities.
4. Supporting local initiatives and grassroots efforts rather than imposing external agendas. For example, empowering interfaith dialogue initiatives that have shown success in building community trust.
5. Advocating for international pressure on the military to respect the rights of all communities, not just specific groups, and to return to democracy with the military under the supervision of a civilian government elected under all-inclusive free and fair elections.

The path to democracy in Myanmar requires a comprehensive strategy that addresses the root causes of conflict and promotes reconciliation among all communities. Religious freedom should be part of this broader agenda, but not the sole or primary focus of advocacy efforts. 

To the U.S. Congress, State Department, and Burmese diaspora democracy activists: We urge you to resist the temptation of quick fixes or narrow approaches. The situation in Myanmar demands a holistic, inclusive, and long-term strategy that considers the complex interplay of ethnic, religious, and political factors at play. 

Diaspora groups can play a crucial role by providing insights into local contexts, facilitating connections between international actors and grassroots movements, and advocating for comprehensive policies that address Myanmar’s complex challenges. 

International cooperation is vital. Regional partners like the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and global actors such as the U.N. should be engaged to create a united front in supporting Myanmar’s democratic transition. This could include coordinated sanctions on the military, support for civil society organizations, and diplomatic efforts to isolate the regime in Naypyidaw. 

By adopting a more inclusive and comprehensive approach to advocacy, we can work towards a stable, democratic, and pluralistic Myanmar that respects the rights of all its diverse communities. This strategy not only addresses immediate concerns but also lays the groundwork for lasting peace and democracy in Myanmar. 

The time for action is now. We call on policymakers to develop a comprehensive Myanmar strategy that goes beyond religious issues, engages all stakeholders, and addresses the root causes of conflict. 

We urge diaspora activists to broaden their focus and collaborate across ethnic and religious lines. And we implore the international community to maintain pressure on the military while supporting inclusive democratic initiatives. Only through such a holistic approach can we hope to see a truly democratic Myanmar emerge from its current crisis.

James Shwe is a Myanmar democracy activist in the U.S. and is a member of the advocacy groups Free Myanmar and the Los Angeles Myanmar Movement. He has been trying to organize and motivate the Myanmar diaspora to advocate for democracy in Myanmar.

DVB publishes a diversity of opinions that does not reflect DVB editorial policy. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our stories: [email protected]