The 'shocking' news that the Myanmar military has carried out yet another coup and detained senior government leaders of the nation is probably not surprising to anyone, to say the least. The indications were there for quite some time, the military had given ample indications that it was willing to suspend democracy again. Their stated reason was controlling the spiralling chaos from what they claimed was a highly irregular election with multiple allegations of 'discrepancies' in how the votes were cast and tallied. Indeed, international media had referred to the recent election in the nation as the most corrupt one to date but not for the same reasons as the military. Media censorship, the arrest of critics and the exclusion of the Rohingyas from voting were some of the points that international coverage of the election focused on. Many of these tactics are from the military's own playbook in maintaining its iron claw grip on the nation.
On the specific allegations of the military itself, there is little detail or proof that the supposed tampering of voter lists could have actually reversed the electoral decision. But, as is obvious, the Myanmar military does not truly need to explain itself in a logical or transparent fashion. By the nature of the unique position they forced themselves into as 'guardians of the constitution', the military or the 'Tatmadaw' as it calls itself has established itself in a position that goes beyond the power of elected officials in Myanmar. For one, the military gets an unelected 25 per cent of the seats in the actual parliament. For another, they hold absolute control over core portfolios of governance such as defence, interior and borders ministries. They draw their 'legitimacy' from a 2008 constitution that they themselves helped write and frame. After their puppet government was beaten soundly in elections in 2015, the military had to come to an unusual power-sharing agreement with the popularly elected NLD. Many of the members of this new party had to negotiate with the very people who oppressed and jailed them. In this new era, even the military sought a way to adapt to the new dynamic. For one, it actually made an effort to break-out of its traditionally reclusive roll to take a more active role in politics. The Commander in Chief, Min Aung Hlaing took steps to prevent the chaos that followed regime changes worldwide in the past by engaging in the political process as a representative of Myanmar. As some observers noted, he seemed intent on solidifying his existence as the source of official authority in Myanmar.
This, of course, brings us to the tragic figure of Aung San Suu Kyi and her spectacular fall from grace as she went from being a revered icon of democracy to a genocide-apologist who could not hold back the worst excesses of her nation and its military. Detention by the military junta is not new for Aung who has detained several times throughout the course of her life. She was a revered figure worldwide, a daughter of Myanmar's most famous independence hero who had left a life of opportunity and comfort abroad to return to fix her troubled nation. As the military cracked down on her, the world community gathered to laud her efforts. Accolades by many agencies such as Amnesty followed, finally culminating in a Nobel Peace Prize in 1991. When she finally took power in her specially created role as 'State Counsellor' the world dared to hope that Myanmar could finally be brought back from the brink. But the highpoint did not last. It would not take long for the revered figure of Aung to turn into a reviled one as she sought to defend her nation's military from charges of genocide in regards to the native Rohingya population. Her defence of the military and her continued impassiveness to the plight of the Rohingyas saw her accolades stripped amidst a wave of disappointment in the fall of an icon.
So why did the military want to shut her down again even after she made a villain of herself on the world stage to defend them? This was because Aung was still struggling back home to purge the influence of the military from its top-dog role in the constitution that they made. The elections of 2020 were meant to provide the impetus and the mandate to attempt this improbable task. With the military-backed USDP losing by a landslide in an election they claimed was rigged and thus invalid, the Tatmadaw likely saw an opportunity to intercede and cut the process short.
This is in no way a defence of Aung. Many sources and biographies have pointed towards her complicity in the authoritarian practices that were rampant in her nation. Those who knew her have struggled to explain her changes while commentators have simply dismissed her as a bad leader who could not step out of her role as an icon to effect true change. Equally, some have claimed that the military has maintained an iron claw on the fate of Aung Suu Kyi as evidenced by their constitutional rules expressly keeping her from becoming President of the nation. Though some have characterised her a victim and others as an equally complicit villain, the truth is somewhere in the middle. She may have compromised her principles and image in order to one day reach a position where she could free Myanmar from military rule but we may never know. It is safe to say in her case that the road to hell is paved with the best of intentions.