No End Of History
Coming Soon…
Toby Mendel is a lawyer at the Centre for Law and Democracy, an international human rights organization based in Canada that focuses on foundational rights such as freedom of expression, access to information, association, assembly, and participation. Since 2012, he has worked extensively in Myanmar, engaging directly with government officials on democratic law reform, particularly in the area of freedom of expression, and later supporting civil society and local governance initiatives after the 2021 coup. His experience provides a deep and nuanced perspective on the country’s ongoing struggle for democracy.
Mendel opens by describing Myanmar’s democratic transition as flawed at every stage. Under the Thein Sein administration, he witnessed what he calls a genuine “pivot towards democracy,” with senior military-linked officials putting in place new legislation and structures. Between 2012 and 2015, it felt like an exhilarating period of change, with international organizations energized and ordinary citizens experiencing new hope. “As a long-standing human rights activist, it was a heady time. We were doing great things, and it was exciting to be working in the country and seeing these things getting pushed through.” The 2015 NLD election victory, however, did not extend this momentum. Progress “came to an abrupt halt,” and during that period the Centre for Law and Democracy achieved almost nothing in terms of legislative reform. He points to the broadcasting law adopted in August 2015, just before the NLD took office. It could have created an independent broadcasting council, but the NLD never implemented it, leaving the reform blocked for their entire term. This was a striking contrast to the Thein Sein period, when at least some laws were being passed that aligned with international human rights standards and military officials were unexpectedly open to external advice.
By the coup of 2021, Myanmar still had only twelve licensed radio stations; this was a media sector that was “absolutely not developed.” Apart from the most repressive countries, Mendel comments that nowhere else in the world looked like that. While he acknowledges that the NLD faced constraints, he adds that these reforms were not military red lines, and earlier engagement with military officials on freedom of information showed they could be persuaded such laws posed no threat. The deeper problem, in his view, was the NLD’s lack of commitment to certain democratic values. As he puts it, they believed in democracy as an abstract principle, but resisted aspects of its practice. “I don’t think they were enthusiastic about having a free and open media which could criticize them," Mendel says. "They had some pretty serious psychological or attitudinal barriers to accepting a proper democracy.”
That reluctance, he continues, extended to the Rohingya crisis. This, in his view, “didn’t just happen, it was manufactured” during NLD rule. Aung San Suu Kyi, despite her “enormous moral authority and impact on the people of Myanmar,” effectively went along with events during an unfolding human tragedy. As Mendel puts it, “Not using her moral and political authority was a significant failure as a leader.” Since the coup, however, he notes that some anti-Rohingya attitudes have begun to shift, as many Burmese now understand the raw fear and violence that comes from confronting a hostile military firsthand.
Despite these failures, Mendel concedes that the NLD advanced social progress in some areas, such as women’s health and broader equality. An ongoing project with a Women’s Health Organization offers a concrete example: CLD worked with this group on the right to information because they understood that women’s rights could only be fully realized if government became more open. Although access to information was not their main line of work, they took up this strand alongside their women’s health and equality efforts and, as Mendel notes, saw considerable success. Yet the harder, long-term work of embedding a democratic culture was not pursued.
On the legal front, the Centre for Law and Democracy worked to build capacity among Myanmar’s lawyers, a focus that became especially important after the coup. Mendel notes that Myanmar did not experience the same kind of colonial “democratic hangover” left in many other former colonies, and so lacked even a thin democratic culture to build on. This absence made it more difficult for democracy to take root and was one reason he sought to establish the Myanmar Media Lawyers Network, which supported lawyers committed to a democratic media environment and became a model replicated elsewhere.
He wonders what might have been achieved if the NLD had placed greater emphasis on democracy‑building. At the same time, he stresses that the February 1, 2021 coup was something no one could realistically have foreseen. What made the rupture so stark was that, before the coup, senior officials in the Ministry of Information and related organizations were at least moving in the direction of democratic progress; afterward, many of those same individuals found themselves imprisoned. He recalls a remarkable moment when a former Minister of Information official reached out with an unusually candid request to explain what genuine democracy really meant— something he had never experienced in three decades of work. That plea underscores for him the lack of reliable media and the divergent understandings of human rights in Myanmar.
To bridge from this, he stresses that reactive measures alone are not enough. Building on earlier successes, CLD is now trying to secure funding to develop a basic democratic framework that can be adapted to any governing authority in Myanmar, including those operating in conflict zones. The idea is that governments or administrations interested in democracy can adopt the framework, while those reluctant to do so may still feel the pressure of criticism amplified by CLD’s support for local actors.
From there he turns to another strand of work, focused on the so‑called “statelets”— territories outside the junta’s control. In Myanmar’s constantly shifting landscape, where borders are contested and control is often decided by conflict, rights can be legitimately restricted in ways unusual elsewhere. Although there is general agreement on the need for a federal arrangement, interpretations of what federalism should look like differ widely. The danger, he cautions, is that the outcome may ultimately be dictated by military gains rather than by genuine democratic debate.
Still, he identifies a silver lining in the coup: it has pushed thinking on democracy forward in ways he had not seen before. There is now a far clearer recognition among Myanmar’s people that military dominance can never be compatible with genuine democratic governance. He describes the 2015–2020 period as an anomaly, unlike any other country claiming to be democratic. Since the coup, attitudes on patriarchy and on the Rohingya crisis have shifted, which he interprets as a hopeful sign of deeper reflection. What continues to impress him most is the resilience of the people: “In the face of untold opposition, they are standing up and being counted and continuing to do that, even while the rest of us are not giving them the support they need and deserve.” From his perspective, grassroots commitment to democracy is stronger than ever. At the same time, he cautions that the military remains one of the world’s most repressive regimes, and urges the international community to grapple with Myanmar’s complexities rather than reducing them to simplistic narratives.
He stresses that simply replacing the military with something only “less toxic” would fall short. Shallow conceptions of democracy, he cautions, must be rejected— even among opposition groups— if civil society is to thrive. What he sees as crucial are practical frameworks, such as registration and licensing systems, that allow media and civic organizations to operate with genuine freedom. He is clear that a comprehensive nationwide NGO law is unrealistic in the current climate, given how hostile the environment is to independent civil society. Instead, he advocates smaller but concrete steps: respecting basic democratic practices and experimenting in liberated areas with elections or participatory mechanisms adapted to the context. “It’s not possible to have a free and fair election in Myanmar today,” he admits, yet he underscores the importance of local initiatives that are laying groundwork for the future. With CLD’s support, some groups have adopted media policies, set out rules for civil society registration, and tested other baseline frameworks. These efforts remain fragile, often undermined by both limited democratic knowledge and the constant pressure of military realities.
Looking outward, Mendel points to global risks: American withdrawal has been destabilizing, and China’s aggressive promotion of non-democratic models poses a growing challenge. Disinformation— the ease with which people can be “completely confused about what’s really going on”— is another threat to democracies everywhere. His native Canada, he argues, must rise to its growing global stature with stronger commitments to democracy and human rights abroad. Myanmar, once a donor darling, saw support decline even before the coup and U.S. withdrawal. The need for democracy-building is now more urgent than ever, and waiting until the regime falls will be too late. “I think that Canada is oriented towards that," he says. "But we’ll have to see.”
Transitioning from this broader international outlook back to Myanmar itself, Mendel stresses that they need more support, and more pressure must be directed at countries like Russia and China that obstruct democracy. Myanmar is no longer in the global spotlight, but he insists it is still incumbent on Western governments to support the democratic movement, expressing hope that, in the end, the country will achieve democracy. “The people of Myanmar are engaged in an epic struggle for their country, for its very survival to some extent, and certainly for its progress in terms of democracy and human rights.”