Who Owns the Controlled Territories During the Revolution?

By Htwin

In early April, officials and subordinate forces from the National Unity Government (NUG) and the Ministry of Defense (MOD) visited an oilfield region bordering Pauk and Myaing townships in Magway Region. This area is currently under the dominant control and leadership of "Bo Let Yar, Minister of Defense of the Interim Government of the Magway Federal Unit," to collaborate on joint supervision and administration.

Following this event, local residents and some revolutionary fighters staged protests with the slogan, "Our territory, we own it." Questions also widely emerged: "When we were fighting to turn this territory into a controlled zone, what support did the NUG provide that they now want to come and govern it?"

These words cannot be easily dismissed without serious consideration.

Behind the phrase "Our territory, we own it" lies blood, life, sacrifice, the scourge of war, and pain carried for many years. We must not forget that those who strove to turn these areas into controlled territories include not only the revolutionaries who gave their lives fighting on the ground, but also the locals who abandoned or lost their homes, and the citizens who provided supplies.

Therefore, simply labeling this sentiment as "selfishness" would mean turning a blind eye to the reality of the revolution on the ground.

The Nature of Collective Sacrifice

On the other hand, a controlled territory does not belong to any single leader, any single armed group, or any single local faction. These territories were built through the blood, sweat, and tears of revolutionaries from all regions, including donations and supplies from citizens across Myanmar, and the sacrifices of Civil Disobedience Movement (CDM) staff. Thus, saying "Only we own it" could narrow the collective meaning of the revolution.

Following the February 1, 2021 coup, citizens across Myanmar entered the path of armed revolution out of their own conscience. At that time, the NUG did not even exist yet. Young people went into the jungles. They built resistance groups through self-reliance. They fought the military dictatorship with whatever weapons they could find.

However, the greatest political force that managed to unite these revolutionary forces under "a single objective" was the influence of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and the public’s hope for democracy.

When the NUG emerged later, most revolutionary forces followed its policies. While groups close to the NUG received support, the majority had to survive through self-reliance. Yet, even the groups that did not receive direct support from the NUG did not view the NUG as an enemy, because the fundamental political goal of the revolution remained the same.

The Logic of Ownership

Here, an important question arises: "Who owns a controlled territory?"

If we answer using the logic that "the winner/captor owns it," this concept becomes no different from the foundational concept of the military dictatorship. Didn't the military also seize the country by force of arms and declare ownership of "state power"? Therefore, the revolution is meant to abolish the notion that "the one who holds weapons has the right to ownership"—not to allow that notion to be reborn in a different guise.

The main purpose of the revolution is not for "various powerful actors to emerge in various territories." It is to build a system where power is removed from the hands of a small group and redistributed back to all the people. If a controlled territory continues to operate on the logic that "we captured it, so we own it," that area will cease to be a liberated zone and will instead remain merely a faction-owned territory.

In reality, controlled territories are built upon collective sacrifice. Supply troops traveled across Myanmar to collect donations. CDM staff sacrificed their salaries. Myanmar diaspora communities provided financial support. Youth from various regions left their own hometowns to go and fight in other areas.

In a single controlled territory, there could be people from Mandalay, people from Yangon, and various ethnic nationalities such as Chin, Kachin, Karen, and Bamar. Some live in the jungle, cut off from their families. Some live as "guest revolutionaries" in places that are not their hometowns. Therefore, a type of unseen exclusion can inadvertently creep into the phrase "our territory."

The Path to True Federal Democracy

The essence of a federal system is neither "the center controlling everything" nor "each region becoming an independent dictatorship." What is truly needed is a political framework that can connect local decision-making power with nationwide responsibility, while respecting the locals' right to self-determination. The sacrifice of the local people must be recognized, but that sacrifice cannot be converted into a permanent, exclusive right to govern.

Therefore, joint administration with the NUG should not be viewed merely as them "coming to snatch control." Such collaborative systems are also a test that can transition revolutionary forces from the stage of a "faction-owned territory" to the stage of "people-owned administration."

In conclusion, the revolution is not a race to seize territory. It is not a competition over who is more powerful. The revolution is searching for the answer to the political question: "How will power be shared and checked?"

If revolutionary forces view controlled territories only as "territories that belong to us," Myanmar could eventually transform into a country where one military junta falls, only to be replaced by numerous regional dictators.

Therefore, controlled territories are not the inheritance of any single individual or group. At the same time, the voices of those who sacrificed their lives, blood, sweat, homes, and property for these territories cannot be erased.

True federal democracy must be a system capable of balancing both "the voice of the local" and "the responsibility of the entire nation" simultaneously.

Editorial Note: This article has been selected, edited, and presented as a feature section with the aim of strengthening the revolution and allowing the public to engage with and analyze diverse perspectives. The views expressed in the article are those of the author alone and do not reflect the views of "People's Goal." Readers are welcome to write comments and discuss the article.