Religion, Identity, and Conflict in
Transitioning Myanmar
Case Study Overview
1. Introduction: “Non-disintegration of the Union”
Relationships between identity groups in Myanmar are being tested in new ways by the unfolding political
and economic transformation unleashed by the government of President Thein Sein. In a country where a
fundamental principle for political management is the “non-disintegration of the union”, the overall picture is in
flux. The government is intentionally working to bring long-standing ethnic conflicts to an end, a process that
has been central to President Thein Sein’s agenda. Yet achieving this goal is not simple in a situation where
new conflicts have emerged at the same time as others have diminished. The re-ignited war in Kachin areas
that raged from 2011 to 2013 is one key example. The other is the ongoing tension between Muslim and
Buddhist communities, most acutely in Rakhine State. The number of social challenges emanating from this
transition away from entrenched authoritarian rule would be difficult for even the most capable government to
manage.
The profound capacity constraints relevant to the Myanmar context exacerbate the political, managerial and
ethical problems confronting national and international actors involved in work to deliver a more peaceful future
for the country’s people. Overall, the study finds that:
• A key driver of deep social divisions is the fact that the Myanmar government has an uneven capacity
to deliver services, especially in areas affected by ethnic and religious conflict. Some parts of the
country, most notably in border areas, are off-limits to government personnel, even if they travel with a
military escort. Then, there are other parts of the country where different ethnic interests seek to deliver
services to local populations, sometimes in direct competition to the local and central governments.
• The unevenness of government capacity has made it very difficult for international organizations to
determine where the greatest needs are, and the haphazard implementation of government policies
complicates the story. To maintain social cohesion, and to minimize the prospects of exacerbating local
inter-group resentment, it is clear that the overall picture of service delivery needs attention, as a key
mechanism for building a more cohesive society