Burmese nationalism under the military junta : elite manipulation and grassroots contention

Abstract

Theories on nationalism hold that elites are mainly responsible for formation and mobilisation of popular nationalism due to their control over society. Research on historical and contemporary nationalist movements indicates that elites create, promote and shape nationalism to seek power and create support for their rule. However, this elite mobilisation faces varying degrees of pushback and rejection at the grassroots level. Therefore, it remains to be seen how much influence elites can exert on society through nationalism. This dissertation seeks to explore the impacts and success of elite-led nationalism by using a case study of Burma. Direct or indirect military rule has shaped popular nationalism in Burma since the 1960s giving rise to discourses of nationalism manifested in exclusive national identity, unity, hostility towards the West and militaristic ambitions. But these discourses are not fully accepted by the population and counter-elites as shown by anti-regime movements erupting periodically in Burma’s post-colonial history. Using analysis of texts produced by top-level elites from 2004 and 2022, a period mostly dominated by military leaders, and personal interviews with anti-regime grassroots actors, this dissertation seeks to analyse the discourses of nationalism produced and passed down by elites, mainly military leaders associated with the State Peace and Development Council and the State Administration Council, and their effects on the grassroots. The main argument is that discourses of nationalism, once hardened, cannot be easily rejected even by counter-elites who have opposed the military-controlled state for decades. However, counter-discourses possess an ability to challenge the hegemony of elite-led nationalism. Discourses of nationalism can be rejected, challenged or negotiated by citizens. The study contributes to scholarship on nationalism by showing that elite-driven nationalism, which is generally thought to be entrenched and therefore “sticky”, may still be exposed to attack. As a result, nationalist perspectives may be subject to constant adjustment due to powerful and prevalent counter-discourses.