Populism Is Not Simply Popularity
Populism is often rendered in Burmese using various labels such as mob-appeal ideology, mass-pleasing doctrine, or crowd politics. Although it is commonly called an “ism,” in reality it has no coherent ideology or philosophy whatsoever. Its essence lies merely in doing whatever pleases the crowd—either to make the masses follow the leader or to allow the leader to follow the masses. For this reason, rather than defining populism as an ideology, it is more appropriate to view it as a method or tactic.
This raises an important question: Does popularity always amount to populism?
The answer is no. Popularity—or majority support—represents only the surface layer of populism. Beneath that surface lie a number of defining characteristics that truly drive populism. Among the most important are the following:
▪️ Lack of Strategy
Populism is like a parasitic vine. It cannot stand firmly on its own ideological roots. It wraps itself around the masses and moves wherever they move—north if they go north, south if they go south. As a result, populism has no clear direction, no strategic vision, and no defined path forward.
▪️ Division
Because populism depends on mass support, it habitually relies on dividing society into camps. The people and the populists on one side; those who oppose them on the other. Only supporters are considered “the people,” while dissenters are labeled enemies.
▪️ Exclusion
Division is often followed by exclusion. Populists govern by directly mobilizing emotions, while actively blocking engagement from other social groups whose perspectives might challenge or complicate their narrative. This prevents pluralism and meaningful dialogue.
George Orwell and the Nature of Populism
George Orwell vividly illustrated the nature of populism in his essay “Shooting an Elephant.” The essay recounts an incident from Orwell’s time as a colonial police officer in Moulmein, Burma.
When reports arrived that an elephant was rampaging through the market, Orwell armed himself with a rifle and went to investigate, intending only self‑defense. By the time he found the elephant, it had calmed down and posed no real danger. Orwell decided to let it be until its owner arrived.
However, behind him stood a massive crowd, eagerly awaiting the spectacle of an English officer shooting an elephant. Their expectations weighed heavily upon him. Though killing the elephant was unnecessary and wrong, Orwell feared being mocked as weak if he refused. In the end, the will of the crowd prevailed, and he shot the elephant despite knowing it was senseless.
Like Orwell’s dilemma, Myanmar’s political leaders have repeatedly been unable to escape the populist trap—abandoning independent judgment in favor of pleasing the masses. History is filled with examples where leaders prioritized popularity over principled and systematic decision‑making.
Five Years of Democracy Trapped in Populism
In 2015, the NLD, led by Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, won a landslide election victory and formed a government. After decades of military rule, the public placed immense trust and hope—especially in Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. However, instead of building a system grounded in strong ideology and institutional structure, the NLD government increasingly prioritized popular sentiment, falling into the populist trap.
As a result, instead of progressing toward sustainable democracy, the country drifted in the following directions:
▪️ Excessive Personal Cult Worship
Public admiration for Daw Aung San Suu Kyi—rooted in genuine respect and affection—grew into excessive personal veneration, bordering on deification. Political responsibilities that should have been institutionally distributed were instead concentrated upon a single individual. Consequently, the NLD became a hollow structure—unable to function independently without Daw Suu.
▪️ Alienation of Ethnic Communities
Populism is a double‑edged sword. It can unite the majority while alienating minorities. Although the NLD successfully mobilized the Bamar heartland, it repeatedly ignored the voices of ethnic minorities. Issues such as internet blackouts in Rakhine State and the erection of controversial statues in Kayah State deepened mistrust and widened ethnic divides.
▪️ Disregard for Intermediary Institutions and Experts
Populism demands constant alignment with mass sentiment. In doing so, it marginalizes independent unions, civil society groups, and experts. Criticism is brushed aside, sometimes even branded as sabotage. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi’s handling of the Rohingya genocide illustrates this pattern: expert warnings and mediation efforts were ignored in favor of maintaining domestic popular support—yielding neither justice nor reconciliation.
A Populist Revolutionary Government
These patterns did not disappear during the revolution. Instead, they intensified.
Although the NUG emerged during the revolutionary period, its legitimacy was rooted in the 2020 election—not in a newly constructed ideological framework. Rather than building an inclusive coalition of ethnic forces, youth activists, unions, and civil servants, the NUG adopted a populist posture: “We are elected; we represent the people.” This led to us‑versus‑them politics, sidelining dissenters.
Critics were labeled traitors, counter‑revolutionaries, or regime supporters—and subjected to exclusion, harassment, and in extreme cases, violence.
CDM as a Populist Litmus Test
The CDM policy became a rigid dividing line: those who joined CDM were deemed righteous; those who continued working in state institutions—regardless of circumstance—were branded collaborators. This binary thinking paved the way for abuses, including threats and killings.
Armed Groups and Internal Fragmentation
Even within armed resistance, the NUG applied divisive tactics—recognizing only forces under its MOD while sidelining others. Local governance initiatives excluded existing grassroots structures, undermining cooperation and legitimacy.
Lack of Accountability, Transparency, and Strategy
Reliance on emotional mass support allowed NUG leadership to evade accountability. Abuses by affiliated armed groups were overlooked, and vague promises replaced concrete planning. Financial transparency disappeared. Legitimate questions were silenced rather than addressed.
Over four years into the revolution, tangible results remain scarce. Militarily weak, politically fragmented, and strategically reactive, the movement now faces declining public trust.
It Is Time to Escape the Populist Trap
Armed struggle cannot succeed alongside populism. Successful resistance requires:
- Strong organizational capacity
- Clear, long‑term strategy
- Disciplined and accountable leadership
Populism provides none of these.
If the NUG continues down this path, Myanmar will neither reach federal democracy nor escape perpetual exile politics. The risk is repeating the tragic fate of previous governments‑in‑exile.
The lesson is clear: unless the NUG urgently escapes the populist trap and rebuilds on principled, inclusive, and strategic foundations, both the revolution and its leadership will fail.
Nyo Htun