Thanks to the humble internet and a good signal we can draw attention to matters which might have taken a pigeon messenger to accomplish in a few weeks to seconds. But what happens when the universal democratic interface, the internet, halts our communication? The people of Myanmar know this feeling all too well when on 1st February an internet shortage stopped them from transmitting messages online, protesting the military coup d'état that has since gained control as a provisional government. The situation in Myanmar, vastly different from our sheer panic after losing connection to our favourite streaming services, likens to when a vital online broadcast was important in keeping democracy within the balances for freedom of speech, a fundamental right.

Myanmar or Burma as it is sometimes called interchangeably is a country in South-East Asia bordered by countries like India, China and Laos. Its ethnic population is made up of at least 8 different groups with the Barmar group being the most prolific. Their main religion is Buddhism with Christianity and Islam making up a much smaller sector. Ever since its default leader Aung San Suu Kyi started rallies for democracy in 1988 the country had been at the hands of an oppressive military rule since 1962. Aung San is seen as a symbol of peace, an angel of democracy even, as her work spanning almost five decades led to her winning three general elections. Unfortunately, this resulted in her detainment under house arrest at least three times. Aung San and her party National League of Democracy (NLD) won the 2020 general election, but 32 days into 2021, the military held up a state of emergency rushing in to take over the government for a year, amidst escalating coronavirus cases. The people of Myanmar had had enough, and to pour salt onto the wound, an internet blackout was allegedly orchestrated by the government to prevent an insurrection. But this didn’t stop people from drowning the streets of Yangon, demanding for change with the three-finger salute used as a symbol of defiance of an autocratic regime.

The internet has always been at the forefront of how people have been able to communicate good or bad news. Social media is a lightning-fast propagator of social and political information bringing with it a newer, shinier definition of the term social currency. People now get their news stories from twitter and Instagram, undoubtedly making it an influential platform for people to advocate important causes. In the case of Myanmar, this isn’t the first time that a country’s freedom of speech has been cut short online. In Uganda, the government used MTN, the country’s largest communications provider, to announce an internet suspension, via radio. President Museveni, who successfully gained a 6th term in government in January, accused Facebook and Twitter of ‘arrogance’. This ironically comes as a surprise from someone ‘called-out’ for restricting the democratic process, allegedly rigging the voting polls to prevent younger, favoured leader of the opposition Bobi Wine, from winning. But what is more catastrophic is the fact that through the whole ordeal no one (without access to VPN providers) could access social media to highlight the injustices preceding the elections.

But everything has its blind-spots and the internet, with its spiders crawling a black-hole of sometimes endless data, helps to magnify the important things—eventually. In 2017, when the Rohingya Muslims fled to neighbouring Bangladesh, Aung San was criticised for allowing the military to conduct raids with what was coined “genocidal intent”, as the military were charged with rapes and murders of the minority population in Myanmar. It is therefore no surprise that Aung San’s international appeal may have waned, as her detainment coincides with news of the military’s rampage four years ago. And although this is the case, a watchdog people’s survey of Myanmar still cast her as a person they trust at 79%.

It’s a shame that political events can never be sustained without a canon of successive issues occurring, often at the detriment of innocent lives. Yet the beauty behind the pain is uncovered as we can get to the root of other issues that often sit hand-in-hand with the main sore. So, before a 24-hr refresh cycle, we were already aware that although Aung San was wrongfully detained, her connection with the military is a grey area and is something to be addressed. Most impactful is the confrontation of how Myanmar’s military atrocities parallel those of other military dictatorships in various countries throughout history.

Only 63 days into the new year and a struggle for power has catapulted the needs of the people of Myanmar to global attention, whilst revealing the cracks in a grave military history that spans over 50 years. The military that overpowered the government and detained leader Aung San Suu Kyi the gatekeeper of Myanmar democracy since 2011, is the same one that terrorised thousands of Rohingya people in 2016 and 2017. The Rohingya people, not considered legal citizens of Myanmar, deserve to not just be seen but also heard, making the right to protest more crucial then ever for every voice. Diverse perspectives are key as the resurgence of the Black Lives Matter movement and a global pandemic has pressurised the world to assess its treatment of minority ethnic people. In this digital age all the injustices of the world simultaneously collide and prevail, the biggest difference it seems, is how the internet aside from obvious data protection issues, can now be weaponised in these real-life conflicts. Who ever imagined that the one universal thing we may have taken for granted could be the defining factor in our future democracies?

Words by Funmi Olagunju

Photographs by The New York Times