Leaders of the post-independent Myanmar state embraced parliamentary democracy as the principal political system but continued their fascination with socialist principles as a basis for equitable economic development. As such, the political system exhibited competitive party politics in a democratic setting, state intervention in the economic system was characterized by an indigenous interpretation of economic nationalism with socialist leanings. The prime minister of the day invoked a vision of economic development geared towards a welfare state of sorts that turned out to be illusory.

POLITICS OF THE DISPLACED STATE

After independence, the Myanmar state was “displaced as the creator of political order and economic direction” to the extent that it was “no longer able to determine many of the conditions of social and economic life” in Myanmar. The Anti-Fascist People's Freedom League (AFPFL) government was challenged by various groups seeking power. Although political parties were the major players in the formal political process, the existence of such power seekers and those seeking influence on the conduct of state affairs eroded the incumbent leaders’ political hegemony and claim for legitimacy.

Historically, as argued in Chapter 2, “many of the interweaving strands of political and economic developments during these … [post- war] years have [had] pre-war roots”. More significantly, there had not occurred any “legitimizing myth which combined a justification for the activities of the modern state with Burmese rather than British notions of justice”, with the state failing to provide a “focus of identity” for most of its citizens. In this context, the post-independent political order was an unsuccessful attempt to superimpose the form and structure of parliamentary democracy over an inchoate strata of “socialist” aspirations. However, the political leadership's interpretations of socialism as an organizing principle for the state were impractical and inadequate, thereby necessitating appeals to traditional values, primordial loyalties, and charismatic leadership to perpetuate their hold on state power that eventually led to the demise of the parliamentary system of governance.