摘要
Since 1962 till 2016, the Myanmar government has mainly been under the leadership of the following four political figures： Ne Win, Saw Maung, Than Shwe, and Thein Sein. However, none of them rose to power through genuine consensus of the nation＇s people, thus lacking in legitimacy and legality. Against this backdrop, the Myanmar society is incessantly caught in a cycle of tyranny, surveillance, repression and other means of inequality, as military authority continues to be reinforced in the country. Even though Thein Sein led a series of reform which include the release of some political detainees, freedom from house arrest granted to Aung San Suu Kyi, the right to form political parties, and relaxation of media censorship, he was still using military force to control various sectors in Myanmar, with military dictatorship still at the core of his power. General elections were held in Myanmar on November 8, 2015, the first open election since May of 1990. The results were as expected, with the National League for Democracy （NLD） led by Aung San Suu Kyi now holding majorities in the House of Nationalities （with 135 seats） and the House of Representatives （with 255 seats）, granting NLD comprehensive governance, with NLD member, U Htin Kyaw, elected as the first Myanmar civilian president in 54 years. Aung San Suu Kyi is to head two cabinet posts including foreign affairs and president＇s office ministries. However, the path ahead for the Myanmar political climate is still fraught with uncertainties, and it is mainly due to the transparent injustice embedded in the Myanmar constitution, which allows the military regime to continue to hold control over the country, reserving the possibilities for the military to make a comeback. Based on the above, this paper investigates the dictatorship of Ne Win, Saw Maung, Than Shwe, and Thein Sein through political development theory, and the objective is to present evidence that although Myanmar has been through different leaders, they all at the core, have maintained a military dictatorship. Lastly, further analysis is presented on the limitations imposed on the development of democracy in Myanmar due to the terms listed in the current constitution, making it challenging for the current Myanmar government to break free from military control after the 2015 elections, with the situation resembling putting old wine in a new bottle.
