Abstract

The National League for Democracy (NLD) is a decisive actor in Myanmar’s ongoing political transformation process and yet a clear understanding of its structure is absent from the discourse on the party. This article analyses the NLD based on Richard Katz’s and Peter Mair’s “three faces of party organisation.” It examines the relationship between the NLD in public office, the NLD on the ground, and the NLD central office. The findings characterise the NLD as a highly centralised party in which most decision-making power is concentrated at the party’s central office. Select layers of the party’s network retain the power to influence important decisions, such as the nomination of candidates for elections. Yet, their ability to do so is due to the lack of rules and regulations. This article argues that the structure of the NLD is the product of the dynamics that governed the formation and development of the party under authoritarian rule. Fears of a partial authoritarian resurgence at the hands of Myanmar’s armed forces (Tatmadaw) and the perception that its authoritarian structures constitute a competitive advantage within Myanmar’s hybrid regime inform the NLD’s decision to refrain from reforming and democratising its structure. Yet, leaving the party’s structure unchanged stands to negatively impact the party’s political profile and its role in Myanmar’s political transformation process. In the long term, it might endanger the party’s stability and contravene the party’s political principles. The article draws on interviews with NLD politicians conducted during an extensive research stay in Myanmar from 2018 to 2019.

Highlights

  • Until the National League for Democracy (NLD) assumed government following a landslide victory at the 2015 general elections, the party had largely been perceived as democratic

  • The findings show that the NLD is highly centralised with most of the power resting at the party’s central office but with a gradual shift towards the party in public office

  • Katz and Mair imagine that such divisions might occur because “members of the party executive are likely to owe their position to different faces of the party, and have to maintain the support of their individual constituencies if they are to remain in the central office” (1993: 599)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Until the National League for Democracy (NLD) assumed government following a landslide victory at the 2015 general elections, the party had largely been perceived as democratic. There are still not so democratic practices and procedures in the party – selection or election – mostly relating to the way in which executive committee members assume their places.

Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.