COMMENT – Myanmar and Vietnam: Why Authoritarian Regimes Violate Human Rights
Posted under: Arya Prachand, Northwestern University – Evanston, Illinois
COMMENT – Myanmar and Vietnam: Why Authoritarian Regimes Violate Human Rights
The political environments in Myanmar and Vietnam stem from a long history of tyranny and violence. This comparative study examines how both countries with different struggles react under an authoritarian regime. This essay analyzes the human rights violations committed by governments to seize and maintain power, including restrictions on religion, speech, expression, and protest. As authoritarian governments seek to create a controlled and orderly environment, this essay argues that violent oppression and human rights abuse are used as a tool for authoritarian survival.
Human rights violations are frequently viewed as acts of tyranny and domination, but they are also used as deliberate strategies tied to political power, ideological control, and economic interests. In Southeast Asia, the authoritarian states of Myanmar and Vietnam have both engaged in human rights abuses that serve their regimes, even despite different political structures. They are both governed by authoritarian regimes, meaning that personal freedom in these countries is very limited. Authoritarian regimes have become more efficient at getting rid of the institutions that are meant to support basic civil liberties (see Repucci & Slipowitz, 2022). This type of government is designed to maintain order and control, but at the expense of freedom and fundamental rights. The military government of Myanmar frequently targets ethnic minorities, especially Rohingya Muslims, to assert dominance and display power. In Vietnam, citizens who oppose the government often have their civil rights infringed upon. The governments of Myanmar and Vietnam deliberately use repression as a tactic to stay in power, subduing groups that threaten their regime and enforcing tyranny to prolong their rule. These authoritarian systems are a foundation for political unrest, and frequently keep power by eliminating resistance through censorship, violence, and imprisonment.
Country Background: Myanmar
Since its independence in 1948, Myanmar has struggled with poverty, military rule, and civil war. Myanmar came under military rule following a 1962 coup, and the junta refused to recognize the results of a 1990 general election in which National League for Democracy (NLD) leader Aung San Suu Kyi won by a landslide (Council on Foreign Relations, 2026). A variety of repressive election laws and prohibitions on citizenship – including a 1982 law that stripped Rohingya of their Burmese citizenship – were hallmarks of military rule, even as they eventually embarked on some power sharing initiatives with the NLD. Most recently, the military regained control of the country when the democratically elected president was ousted in a 2021 coup, leading to increased poverty and a collapsed healthcare system (Council on Foreign Relations, 2026). The military, known as the Tatmadaw, has been pushing back on opposition from civilians and ethnic armed organizations, escalating tension and violence. On 1 February 2021, Myanmar’s military arrested the country’s national and state-level civilian leaders and announced a one-year state of emergency. President Win Myint and Suu Kyi were among the group members gathering to discuss the NLD’s victory in the 2020 election when they were arrested (Council on Foreign Relations, 2022). The military also jailed NLD officials and activists for their opposing views. The declared state of emergency allowed the military to seize control of all three branches of government and push for new elections. The military also cut telecommunications and the internet, cutting the country off from the outside world in direct violation of human rights (Yeung, 2021).
It is notable that Burmese society places great importance on social hierarchy. Buddhist Monks, spiritual elites, men, and highly educated persons are regarded with respect and importance compared to women and non-Buddhist religious groups. Ethnic conflicts within this diverse country have contributed heavily to conflict and struggle; more than two thirds of people in Myanmar are Bamar (ethnic Burmans), who have historically held high social positions in both government and military – creating a divide between the other ethnic minority groups. Minority groups are minimally represented in government and have faced abuses at the hands of the military. However, an increasingly important factor that determines social status is one’s association with power structures (Belak, 2002). People that have built a good rapport with the military are generally respected, “though it remains unclear how much military personnel are genuinely respected and how much of this apparent respect is simply prudence related to fear or benefit. Connections with those in positions of power in the military government are very important in today’s Burma, since they greatly affect one’s real-life opportunities,” writes Brenda Belak (2002). Positive relations with the Tatmadaw are seen as important and extremely beneficial within society.
The Tatmadaw’s recent governance marks the reversal of significant political, economic, and social progress made in Myanmar with the rise of power-sharing. Civil leaders were able to share power with the military under the revised 2008 constitution, which helped secure Suu Kyi’s release from house arrest in 2010. In this constitution, the government was broken up into judicial, executive, and legislative branches with the president elected by the parliament. There also existed a bicameral House of Representatives, with specific seats allotted to the military, and partisan competition was strong. Although political parties have continued to function after the coup, distinguished political leaders have been persecuted by the regime (Freedom House, 2024a). The coup of 2021 also prompted widespread protests and unrest, with large-scale protests demanding the release of detained political leaders and the recognition of the 2020 election results (BTI Project, 2024). The military has responded to nonviolent protest – including methods of civil disobedience, strikes, noise demonstrations, and boycotts – with brutal force, such as indiscriminate killings (BTI Project, 2024). Peaceful protests calling for democracy are quickly crushed by the Tatmadaw, suppressing dissent and maintaining military influence over all aspects of Burmese society.
The Tatmadaw’s human rights abuses have been especially grave in areas populated by ethnic minority groups, with reports of rape, torture, use of child soldiers, and killings (Human Rights Watch, 2022). In a 2017 interview, Abdul Halim, a Rohingya refugee in Bangladesh, spoke about his experiences: “Myanmar authorities brutalized us…They burned down our houses, raped our mothers and sisters, burned our children. We took shelter in Bangladesh to escape that brutality. Now I’ve been living in Kutupalong camp for five years” (quoted in Human Rights Watch, 2022, para 5). Denied Burmese citizenship since 1982 and framed as “illegal immigrants” by the state, Rohingya Muslims have been denied rights to education, healthcare, and religion while being targeted for ethnic cleansing and genocide (Council on Foreign Relations, 2020, para 4). Their lack of recognition as members of society is frequently used to justify their repression, making them susceptible to exploitation, sexual and gender-based violence, and various forms of abuse (Islam, 2019) – rights violations that have prompted their forced migration, with a majority of stateless Rohingya (98%) now living in Bangladesh and Malaysia (United Nations, 2024). The Council on Foreign Relations highlights the pervasive state discrimination against Myanmar’s Rohingya population:
The Myanmar government has effectively institutionalized discrimination against the ethnic group through restrictions on marriage, family planning, employment, education, religious choice, and freedom of movement. For example, Rohingya couples in the northern towns of Maungdaw and Buthidaung are only allowed to have two children. Rohingya must also seek permission to marry, which may require them to bribe authorities and provide photographs of the bride without a headscarf and the groom with a clean-shaven face, practices that conflict with Muslim customs. To move to a new home or travel outside their townships, Rohingya must gain government approval (Albert & Maizland, 2023).
Country Background: Vietnam
Vietnam was colonized by the French and endured a long struggle for liberation and unification. The country was separated into North and South, with the South supported by the United States and the communist North supported by the Soviet Union and China. The Vietnam War (1955-1975) was an armed conflict in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia that served as a Cold War “proxy war” between capitalist and communist nations, and it eventually ended with the Paris Peace Accords and the withdrawal of American troops (see Pritzker Military Museum & Library, n.d.).
The Communist Party of Vietnam (CPV) has maintained a strong presence in the country’s political system for decades. The top government positions in Vietnam are divided into four pillars to ensure that no single individual has too much power: the General Secretary, President, Prime Minister, and Chairman. However, all the members are part of the CPV, which means the Communist Party has a monopoly on government control. Elections do exist, but only CPV approved candidates are able to run for office. The CPV is committed to silencing any opposition, despite pressures from international forces like the United Nations and the European Union. In fact, the CPV has instilled systems to make sure that no other political parties are able to operate. According to Freedom House (2024b): “The electoral laws and framework ensure that the CPV, the only legally recognized party, dominates every election. The party controls all electoral bodies and vets all candidates, resulting in the disqualification of those who are genuinely independent.” These elections are predetermined and exclude the public from having any influence over policy, ensuring that all the power is concentrated within the CPV.
The military force of the CPV, known as the People’s Army, enforces the strict regulations propagated by the government. According to researchers with the United States Institute for Peace (2024), the rights-abusive People’s Army has “significant influence” in the political system; while rights like freedom of expression, opinion, and speech are guaranteed in the constitution, they are not implemented in practice. In 2024, the CPV-led government seized and imprisoned over 150 people for exercising their basic civil and political rights (Human Rights Watch, 2024). The police monitor and often violently reprimand those who speak out against the CPV, especially human rights activists. Human Rights Watch (2024) describes government punishments against prisoners Dang Dinh Bach and prominent political prisoner Tran Huynh Duy Thuc, who were intimidated and threatened; Dang Dinh Bach was reportedly hit on the head from behind for trying to tell his family on a phone call how he was being treated in prison.
Vietnam’s presidency is a useful example of how the country uses rights abuse to stifle dissent. The current president is Luong Cuong, but his predecessor was To Lam – now the current secretary general of the Communist Party. Lam was a prominent figure in Vietnamese politics, holding several positions of power that enabled him to implement policies that were cruel and restrictive. Namely, his previous experience as the Minister of Public Security has allowed him to exert his power. Early in his tenure, Vietnam experienced a toxic spill that devastated local fishing communities, and Lam’s response was to implement a major police crackdown to intimidate and silence activists who protested for victims’ rights (Pearson, 2024). Lam also ordered the arrest of activists who promote democracy and human rights, and anyone who has dared to criticize the government.
Censorship in Vietnam is also high, with activists arrested if they protest or speak out. Radio, social media, and blogs that are deemed politically unacceptable are barred from the country. According to the BTI Project (2024), an international think tank that analyzes democratic transitions, Vietnam’s political leadership strives to convince outside countries like the United States that their political regime is legitimate – but they have a “terrible record of human rights violations” that makes their commitment to rights treaties “superficial.” Vietnam’s civil society and social media face increasing restrictions affecting everyone from informal bloggers to registered non-governmental organizations (NGOs) (United States Institute of Peace, 2024).
The CPV has sought national unity under a centralized government, yet it has historically viewed some ethnic and religious groups as threats. Many minority groups fought against the Communist Party and with the United States during the Vietnam War, which resulted in frequent retaliations against those groups even after the war. While 85% of the Vietnamese population is of the Kinh group, there are 53 other ethnic minorities that make up the country (Open Development Vietnam, 2019). After the Vietnam War in 1975, the CPV saw the Montagnards (several ethnic groups native to the Central Highland provinces) as traitorous, which has led to identity persecution and land confiscation (see Human Rights Watch, 2011). Tensions between the two groups increased during the war when the government promoted deforestation, commercial agriculture, and infrastructure projects that displaced the Montagnards under the Land Development Program in 1954. Maintaining cheap labor conditions and urban expansion adds to the government’s economic interests. Profits gained from exploiting the Montagnards fuel the economy and allow the Vietnamese government to continue despite regional and international criticism. The government remains in strict control of the Central Highlands, subjecting the Montagnards to political suppression and religious persecution; the state maintains that Montagnards who belong to unregistered house churches outside the control of the official Southern Evangelical Church of Vietnam are “Dega Protestants,” an alleged cover for an independence movement (see Provera, 2011). In Vietnam, people may only join those religious groups sanctioned by the government – forcing hundreds of Montagnard Catholics and Protestants to renounce their religion in public criticism sessions. Those who resist and insist on their right to independent worship face beatings, arrest and imprisonment (Provera, 2011).
Human Rights Abuse as a Political Tool
Human rights violations are ongoing problems in both Myanmar and Vietnam, combined with decades of political and social turmoil. The ethnic cleansing of Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar and the suppression of basic rights in Vietnam are a direct result of the actions of the government, which is willing to violate human rights as a tool for governance. In these fragile political environments, repression is used to maintain power and assert dominance. These human rights violations typically arise from the need to suppress political opposition to ensure authoritarian survival, economic growth, and political supremacy.
The authoritarianism in Myanmar and Vietnam differ on some levels, but they are both extremely effective at suppressing dissent. Vietnam’s government is structured by a one-party communist system while Myanmar falls under a military rule, for instance, yet both are governed by authoritarian regimes. Myanmar is dominated by the Tatmadaw military group, which rules without a structured political party; in Vietnam, power is centralized and only members of the CPV can be a part of the government. The main difference between these two forms of authoritarian government is that Vietnam’s one-party system allows for more internal stability, while Myanmar’s military rule often leads to sudden coups and disruptions in power (Thang, 2023). Elections are completely prohibited in Myanmar, as opposed to Vietnam where elections take place – even though CPV candidates are only able to run. Restrictions on freedom of speech, expression, religion, and opinion are under heavy surveillance and are monitored to maintain state control. Vietnam and Myanmar use their repressive regimes to consolidate power and eliminate any opposition.
While both countries govern through human rights abuses, Vietnam centers its actions on censorship and surveillance while Myanmar has engaged in “mass atrocity” crimes. Vietnamese journalists and photographers have been jailed and prosecuted for spreading information that may allow the government to be perceived in a negative light, and laws limiting free speech support these crackdowns. In these circumstances, it is unsurprising that many people engage in self-censorship out of fear of state punishment, thereby squashing protests before they start. In Vietnam, for example, the CPV is notorious for limiting online content to silence any expressions of social unrest, political dissent, human rights advocacy, or criticism of government decisions (Freedom House, 2021). Authoritarian regimes create a foundation of political unrest through their inherent governing nature, as expressed with surveillance and censorship. Meanwhile in Myanmar, the government’s actions in ethnic conflict – especially related to their engagement with Rohingya Muslims – has been internationally condemned by the United Nations and the International Criminal Court (ICC), among others. The ICC requested an arrest warrant in November 2024 for Myanmar’s Senior General Min Aung Hlaing for crimes against humanity related to the deportation and persecution of the Rohingya between August and December 2017 (Amnesty International, 2025). During that time, the government used extreme violence, including mass killing, rape, and the restriction of basic freedoms; more than 2.8 million civilians were displaced (United Nations, 2024) and many experts contend that this violence constitutes ethnic cleansing and genocide.
The ethnic and religious conflicts in Myanmar and Vietnam are direct results of historical and political factors in both countries. While both states have minority groups that have come into conflict with the government, their responses differ. Myanmar’s military views ethnic groups as a threat to its control and acts violently to suppress any opposition. While the Rohingya do not pose a direct threat to the Tatmadaw, the military perceives any ethnic minority as detrimental to the cultural framework of Myanmar. The military has targeted religious and ethnic minorities to eradicate differing views and prevent separatist movements. Through the displacement of millions of people and the use of severe direct violence, the government aims to exert power and stay in control. Vietnam also aims to minimize opposing views and separatist movements, which provokes tensions with groups such as the Montagnard religious minority. These conflicts help the governing bodies of Myanmar and Vietnam consolidate power and maintain the dominance of the ruling ethnic majority, despite widespread international criticism.
The Tatmadaw in Myanmar and the CPV in Vietnam have received immense criticism from the international community. Vietnam’s Communist Party is criticized for its authoritarian governance and suppression of dissent, focusing specifically on labor unions, freedom of expression, and political repression. Vietnam has been pressured by the EU and UN to repeal the laws that infringe on civil freedoms and labor union organizing (see The Vietnamese Magazine, 2025). There has been limited action taken on an international scale to directly intervene due to larger economic interests, however. Myanmar’s genocide against the Rohingya has been widely condemned by international organizations (United Nations, 2024). In 2019, the International Court of Justice opened a genocide case brought forward by Gambia (see Independent Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar, n.d.). Various countries followed suit and filed declarations of intervention to the International Court of Justice, where oral hearings for the case started in 2025 (United Nations, 2024), and global corporations have withdrawn from Myanmar in protest (Amnesty International, 2023). Unfortunately, superpowers such as China, Russia, and India have expressed support for the Tatmadaw, continuing business for economic and geographic benefit (Al Jazeera, 2022).
Conclusion
The human rights violations of Vietnam and Myanmar are a collective result of the authoritarian forces that control each country. Through decades of ethnic oppression, censorship, and limited freedoms, the governments can maintain power. Vietnam and Myanmar have exploited ethnic and religious divides to prevent unified opposition and collective uprising. By putting one group above another, loyalty is built among certain populations while suppressing dissent. The Buddhist majority in Myanmar and the Kinh majority in Vietnam are supported by the regimes, “othering” minority groups and promoting superiority. Media censorship is another way to control the population and eliminate any disagreements. The spread of opposing or critical views is stopped, while media that paints the government in a positive light is pushed (Freedom House, 2022). International media is also blocked in some situations, which prevents citizens from accessing alternative viewpoints. Limited freedoms in Myanmar and Vietnam include restricted freedom of speech, religion, and movement amongst several more. Widespread surveillance and extreme punishment foster a fearful environment, discouraging people from speaking out. By creating division, controlling knowledge, and restricting civil liberties, authoritarian regimes make it difficult for organized resistance to be successful. This allows the government to suppress opposition and maintain a facade of power and stability.
References
Albert, E., & Maizland, L. (2023). The Rohingya Crisis. Council on Foreign Relations. Retrieved from www.cfr.org/backgrounder/rohingya-crisis.
Al Jazeera. (2022). China, Russia, India enabling Myanmar’s military rule: Report. Retrieved from www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/11/2/china-russia-india-enabling-myanmars-military-report.
Amnesty International. (2023). Myanmar 2023. Retrieved from www.amnesty.org/en/location/asia-and-the-pacific/south-east-asia-and-the-pacific/myanmar/report-myanmar/.
Amnesty International. (2025). Myanmar: Four years after coup, world must demand accountability for atrocity crimes. Retrieved from www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2025/01/myanmar-four-years-after-coup-world-must-demand-accountability-for-atrocity-crimes/.
Belak, B. (2002). Social Roles and Gender Stereotypes. Gathering Strength. Retrieved from www.burmalibrary.org/docs/GS07.social-roles.pdf.
BTI Project. (2024). Myanmar Country Report 2024. Retrieved from bti-project.org/en/reports/country-report/MMR#pos16.
Council on Foreign Relations. (2020). The Rohingya Crisis. Retrieved from https://www.cfr.org/backgrounders/rohingya-crisis.
Council on Foreign Relations. (2022). Myanmar’s Troubled History: Coups, Military Rule, and Ethnic Conflict. Retrieved from www.cfr.org/backgrounder/myanmar-history-coup-military-rule-ethnic-conflict-rohingya#chapter-title-0-5.
Council on Foreign Relations. (2026). Civil War in Myanmar. Center for Preventive Action. Retrieved from https://www.cfr.org/global-conflict-tracker/conflict/rohingya-crisis-myanmar.
Freedom House. (2021). Vietnam: Freedom on the Net. Retrieved from freedomhouse.org/country/vietnam/freedom-net/2021.
Freedom House. (2024a). Myanmar. Retrieved from freedomhouse.org/country/myanmar/freedom-world/.
Freedom House. (2024b). Vietnam. Retrieved from freedomhouse.org/country/vietnam/freedom-world/2024.
Human Rights Watch. (2011). Vietnam: Montagnards Harshly Persecuted. Retrieved from www.hrw.org/news/2011/03/30/vietnam-montagnards-harshly-persecuted.
Human Rights Watch. (2022). Myanmar: No Justice, No Freedom for Rohingya 5 Years On. Retrieved from www.hrw.org/news/2022/08/24/myanmar-no-justice-no-freedom-rohingya-5-years.
Human Rights Watch. (2024). World Report 2024: Vietnam. Retrieved from www.hrw.org/world-report/2024/country-chapters/vietnam?gad_source=1&gclid=Cj0KCQiAlbW-BhCMARIsADnwason6fi5xxC45nl4t9Ly8Bi5JI6LIG1YUSCnYKIZeANSWMyEuj9zvEkaAv7JEALw_wcB.
Independent Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar. (n.d.). ICJ – The Gambia v. Myanmar. Retrieved from iimm.un.org/en/icj-gambia-v-myanmar.
Islam, M. S. (2019). Understanding the Rohingya Crisis and the Failure of Human Rights Norm in Myanmar: Possible Policy Responses. Jadavpur Journal of International Relations, 23(2): 158-178.
Open Development Vietnam. (2019). Ethnic Minorities and Indigenous People. Retrieved from https://vietnam.opendevelopmentmekong.net/topics/ethnic-minorities-and-indigenous-people/.
Pearson, E. (2024). Beware of Vietnam’s New Authoritarian President.” Al Jazeera. Retrieved from www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2024/6/19/beware-of-vietnams-new-authoritarian-president.
Pritzker Military Museum & Library. (n.d.). Origins of the Vietnam War. Retrieved from https://www.pritzkermilitary.org/explore/museum/past-exhibits/faces-war-photography-front-lines-vietnam/origins-vietnam-war.
Provera, F. (2011). Persecution of Montagnard Christians. European Parliament. Retrieved from europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-7-2011-003946_EN.html.
Repucci, S., & Slipowitz, A. (2022) The Global Expansion of Authoritarian Rule. Freedom House. Retrieved from freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2022/global-expansion-authoritarian-rule.
Thang, L. B. (2023). Understanding the Military Coup in Myanmar, Two Years Later.” East-West Center. Retrieved from www.eastwestcenter.org/news/east-west-wire/understanding-military-coup-myanmar-two-years-later.
The Vietnamese Magazine. (2025). EU Criticizes Vietnam’s Crackdown on Activists in UN Rights Council Address. Retrieved from www.thevietnamese.org/2025/03/eu-criticizes-vietnams-crackdown-on-activists-in-un-rights-council-address/.
United Nations (2024). Far from the Headlines- Myanmar: The Rohingya Crisis. Regional Information Centre for Eastern Europe. Retrieved from unric.org/en/myanmar-the-rohingya-crisis/.
United States Institute of Peace. (2024). The Current Situation in Vietnam. Retrieved from www.usip.org/publications/2024/09/current-situation-vietnam.
Yeung, J. (2021, March 10). Myanmar’s military has detained leader Aung San Suu Kyi in a coup. Here’s what you need to know. CNN. Retrieved from https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/01/asia/myanmar-military-coup-explainer-intl-hnk-scli.
© Copyright 2026 Righting Wrongs: A Journal of Human Rights. All rights reserved.
Righting Wrongs: A Journal of Human Rights is an academic journal that provides space for undergraduate students to explore human rights issues, challenge current actions and frameworks, and engage in problem-solving aimed at tackling some of the world’s most pressing issues. This open-access journal is available online at www.webster.edu/rightingwrongs.