Myanmar people recognize in their hearts that their country was hijacked well before most were born.

While our focus right now might be on the coming second anniversary of the 1 February 2021 military coup, most understand the roots of the problem go way back to the 1948 founding of the country and the imposition of General Ne Win’s 1962 coup, which set the stage for control by the men in green, wresting control from the people.

With hindsight, Thein Sein’s 2010 “opening up” of the country can be viewed as merely an experiment by the military to see how far they could stretch their 2008 Constitution’s “disciplined democracy” while trying to keep a tight grip on the reins.

And so Senior General Min Aung Hlaing’s 2021 coup was a desperate lunge to wrest back control from a country that fell for democracy icon Aung San Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy (NLD) party in largely free-and-fair elections in 2015 and 2020. We know now that pressure was building behind the scenes over “alleged fraud” in the 2020 poll but what was the general thinking to arrest The Lady and her fellow politicians? How could the man be so out of touch? We will likely never know.

Today, Myanmar is in a battle for its soul as fighters of the Spring Revolution work to wrest the country from the generals.

All the players – from the National Unity Government, to the People’s Defence Forces, to the Ethnic Revolutionary Organizations – realize this will not be easy. Behind the revolutionary slogans lie the fear that the generals will wreak havoc in their desperate attempt to hold on to power.

Under these circumstances, the leaders of the Spring Revolution need to pull together and rethink Myanmar from the ground up. This includes throwing away old disputes and demands and focusing on building a new federal union. Many of the players come with baggage from the past – not least ethnic groups with past gripes against the military or even the NLD.

As rights activist Igor Blasevic suggests, talks – ideally face-to-face – need to be held to not only discuss immediate concerns but also look at how they should fashion Myanmar as an open, free-and-fair federal union representing all of the people of the country, including marginalized ethnic groups and even former military players and supporters who are willing to change sides and repent. The efforts come under the four pillars of society – democratization, federalization, national reconciliation and social equity for all the peoples in Burma/Myanmar.

The nature of democracy in Myanmar also needs to be discussed against a backdrop in which democracy is in crisis around the globe. Gone are the days when the USA could be trumpeted as a beacon of democracy. On a worldwide level, policymakers and the people need to rethink democracy globally in order that governance and decision-making involves more emphasis on the local level. There is a gradual realization that the polarized battle between say two major parties, or the simplistic labelling of parties as Left or Right, is not working.

Myanmar needs to be considered in this context.

As writer Andrew Whitehead pointed out in a recent commentary on Myanmar federalism for Mizzima, “one of the main purposes of introducing regional decision making is to enable large and complex nations to accommodate diversity and so blunt separatist sentiment. That’s how it has worked in the world’s two major democracies.”

And so it could be for players in Myanmar, a complex mix of political groups with a plethora of demands.

Such a rethink could provide a template so that the Golden Land can rise from the ashes of this crisis.