Introduction

The use of the term “legitimacy” and its antonym are often indiscriminately employed both in the media and even in policy circles at the highest levels. Definitions are generally absent, and a vague commonality of understanding is assumed on the part of those who articulate either concept and those who are the audience for it. In both attitudinal and policy terms, this is dangerous, for it leads to false expectations, simplistic approaches, and perverted policies on the part of all involved. Little thought is given, however, beyond an emotional response to the complexity of that assessment, and, indeed, the views of those affected by the legitimate-illegitimate paradigm.

In the case of Burma/Myanmar, this gap is especially important because it not only involves a government and its political opposition, but a virtual myriad of minorities, each of whom may have their own assessment of what constitutes legitimacy for their own or central government administrations. This is further complicated as world attention has been focused on that state, and thus concepts derived from abroad, which may or may not have been fully ingested in that complex of societies, are attributed to internal events. Even the name of the state, “Burma” or Myanmar,” conjures up both concepts of legitimacy and illegitimacy depending on one's vantage point.

The purpose of this chapter is not to determine which among these contested legitimacies or any potential permutations of them is appropriate, for that ultimate decision must rest only with the peoples of that society. Rather, it is an attempt to analyse the diverse forces that have consciously or unconsciously, inchoately or rationally, been used in this struggle and in previous societal attempts to apply various symbols and tools to attempt to forge consensus toward the employment of power and the resultant imposed or acquiesced authority — that is, the legitimacy of regimes or institutions.