The Changing of the Guard

A Study of the challenges faced by youth leaders in post-National Youth Policy Myanmar

Author: Jakob Annerdal Supervisor: Susanne Alldén

Semester: VT 2020 Course Code: 2FU33E

Table of Content

Abstract

Acknowledgements

List of Appendices

Acronyms

List of Tables

1.0 Introduction 1 1.1 Research Topic 1 1.2 Background & Context 3 1.3 Objective(s) & Research Problem 4 1.4 Research Questions 5 1.5 Relevance 6

2.0 Literature Review 8

3.0 Methodology 13 3.1 Method 13 3.2 Sampling 14 3.3 Epistemological Considerations; Reliability & Validity 15 3.4 Ethical Considerations 16 3.5 Limitations, Delimitations & Further study 18

4.0 Analytical Framework: Generational Change & Political Socialization 20 4.1 Political Socialization 20 4.2 Generational Change 23 4.3 Summary & Synthesis 24

5.0 Discussion 26 5.1 Research Question 1: Post- Youth Policy Challenges 26 5.2 Research Question 2: International Norms & Socialization 31 5.3 Research Question 3: Targeted Improvement 35

6.0 Conclusion 42

Bibliography 43 Reference List 43 Key Informant Interviews List 44 Unpublished Sources 45

Annexe I: Interview Guide 46

Abstract The contrast between the recently adopted UN resolution

UNSCR2250 in which youth are recognized as key stakeholders

in democratic and peace processes and the social structures that

historically have excluded youth from meaningful participation

in decision-making in Myanmar - paired with recent changes in

the country including the adaptation of Myanmar's first national

youth policy and changing attitudes towards youth participation

has left the government in need of guiding research that allows

for data driven policy making. One sub-category of youths who

have been left unattended in research post national youth policy

adoption is youth leaders in a process of transitioning into a role

of power. If future youth, peace and security policy is to

facilitate their transition to power, and be in accordance with

these recent changes, it is to be driven by data. Myanmar will

continue to face changes - in light of these changes, this research

attempts to identify the needs of these youth leaders through key

informant interviews and application of a new analytical

framework - political socialization paired with generational

change. It attempts to determine whether cultural structures of

old are hindering their progress as well as how to best facilitate

their transition to power.

Acknowledgements Firstly, I’d like to give my sincerest thank you to all the people

who took the time to speak with me and participate in my

interviews. In the middle of a global pandemic, the people I

spoke to - many of them amidst busy lives - were instrumental in

the completion of this research. The information they provided,

their understanding and expertise is the foundation of this

research. I am truly grateful. I’d also like to thank my tutor

Susanne Alldén who provided inspiration, insights and many

recommendations without which this research could not have

happened.

Sincerely, Jakob Annerdal …………………………………………………………...……………………………

List of Appendices Appendix I: Interview Guide

Acronyms EAO = Ethnic Armed Organization SDG = Sustainable Development Goals UNSCR2250 = United Nations Security Council Resolution 2250 YPS = Youth, Peace & Security PSF = The Paung Sei Facility’s report Youth & Everyday Peace in Myanmar: Fostering the untapped potential of Myanmar’s youth (2017) MP = Member of Parliament

List of Tables Table 1: Summary of Challenges Faced by Youth Leaders Table 2: Challenges Faced by Youth Leaders (Vertical) by Interview Number (Horizontal)

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Research Topic

“There is no more fundamental transfer of power, and therefore no more

fundamental potential for change, than that which occurs between generations.

This is so because, unlike any other type of change, it is inevitable. it is

all-inclusive, and it is untested”

“This generational process cuts across all eras and all types of political systems.

From monarchies to democracies, no type of system is free from this inevitable

changing of the guard”

- Delli Carpini, M, X. 1989

Over the last decade, the prospects of young people's contributions to achieving sustainable

peace has been increasingly reiterated (Grizelj, Altiok 2019; Diuk 2012; Paung Sei Facility

2017). One reason for this emerging interest is the introduction of UNSCR 2250 (United

Nations 2015). This, rather new, resolution emphasizes the positive impacts youth, defined as

“persons of the age of 18-29 years old” (United Nations 2015), can have on sustainable peace.

This definition has been chosen because it is more recognized internationally than the

definition stated in the Myanmar youth policy. The resolution emphasizes the importance of

their involvement in the peace and crucially decision-making process as well, as they will

inherit it eventually. It recognizes youth in itself as a key stakeholder in various democratic

processes. Particularly, the resolution “Calls on all relevant actors, including when negotiating

and implementing peace agreements, to take into account, as appropriate, the participation and

views of youth, recognising that their marginalisation is detrimental to building sustainable

peace in all societies” (United Nations 2015).

It is against this backdrop that this research finds its footing, with Myanmar youth,

and particularly young leaders. Youth voices have not been heard and largely neglected due

1 | Page

to a cultural structure of authority that historically has excluded young people from the

decision-making processes at large (Grizelj 2017 p. 9). In the same study, it was found that

youth in Myanmar largely support the democratic transition currently ongoing in the country

and do in fact seek further influence in that process. When asked about the capacity of young

people, Irena Grizelj found in her research The Youth Space of Dialogue and Mediation in

Myanmar (2017) that members of an older generation might give answers such as “youth in

Myanmar get too excited”, “youth are not mature and not ready” to facilitate or lead the peace

process, or “youth capacity is limited'' when asked about youth (p. 19). Elsewhere it was

found that:

“For example, the bowing of younger people when walking past elders, and use

of superior-inferior pronouns, such as Sayar/Sayama (teacher), U/Daw

(uncle/aunt) and Tha/Thami (son/daughter) are all subtle hierarchical norms that

are normalised and reinforced through day-to-day interactions. While these

gestures are the foundations of respect for elders, young people are often

conditioned to be subordinate, which contributes to the view that youth lack

capability and have insufficient experience and knowledge required for leadership

roles” (Paung Sei Facility 2017 p. 24)

This is why Myanmar in particular provides an interesting case. In the Myanmar context,

many believe young people do not provide enough relevant knowledge, importance or

know-how to provide valuable contribution to society (Grizelj 2017 p. 19; Paung Sei Facility

2017 p. 24) which directly contradicts UNSCR 2250 and the now international recognition of

youth voices - which leaves one to wonder - to what degree does such ingrained cultural

structures hamper the ability of Myanmar youth to contribute to the sustainable peace that

UNSCR 2250 promises youth involvement will bring? This research begins by introducing

the topic further, it’s relevance and scope: Section 2 comprises a literature review; Section 3

outlines the methods used including sampling methods, ethical considerations,

epistemological considerations, delimitations and limitations; Section 4 develops the

analytical framework – a new lens to help us interpret the data; The final sections explores

the findings, followed by a conclusion based on the pieces of the puzzle that has been

presented.

2 | Page

1.2 Background & Context

Although the conflicts in Myanmar are lengthy and as a result sometimes difficult to grasp,

some context of the conflict is required to understand the course this research is about to take.

Primarily, the political systems and military oppression of the recent past is a prerequisite to

understand the grievances of today's armed and unarmed opposition. Relaying the historical

developments of recent years however, is beyond the scope of this brief introduction - but

what is necessary to know is that today Myanmar is emerging from a uniform centralized

military rule, under which ethnic minorities were denied rights to land, resources and social

services (Prasse-Freeman 2012). Furthermore, the ruling military, also known as the

Tatmadaw, conducted grave abuses including forced labour, human shields, extortion,

irregular taxation, physical and sexual abuse and destruction of property. Atrocities such as

these are central to the grievances held by minority groups towards the partially military

government today (The Asia Foundation 2017). Since then, the Tatmadaw has reconstructed

the constitution to allow for political opposition and reformed, partially, as a political party,

which by constitutional right holds a considerable amount of uncontested political power

(Salem-Gervais, N, Raynaud, M 2020). Democratic elections are held, but the Tatmadaw’s

influence in government remains absolute (The Asia Foundation 2017). The result of all this,

though at different times, has been the emergence of a range of ethnic armed organizations

(EAO’s), most with an armed and a political branch. Besides armed opposition towards the

government, these organizations, backed by international pressure, have initiated a process of

and demands for decentralization of government (The Asia Foundation 2017). These EAO’s

however have for decades demanded a transition into a federalist state, which it should be

noted, is not achieved by decentralization in itself, and greater local power and control

(Salem-Gervais, Raynaud 2020).

In 2015 the political party NLD won the elections and put Aung San Suu Kyi in

power. Since then her government has undeniably made changes for youths in the country. In

2018 the government adopted their first National Youth Policy in which they vow to “Provide

opportunity for more equitable access to quality education that ensure leadership capacities in

3 | Page

all sectors of the country in future” (Union of Myanmar ND p. 4; Ministry of Information

2018) amongst many other things.

The general objective of the policy is to “To nurture Myanmar’s young people as

developed youth in all aspects of health, strength, education, social, ethics, values, leadership

capacities and cooperation in order to become good citizens” (Union of Myanmar ND) and

the vision for the outlooks of the policy is for “Young people to play vital and leading role in

building developed democracy federal union in unified and coordinated effort” (Union of

Myanmar ND). It touches upon a range of areas in which improvement to youth participation

and equality is to be improved in respect to the above statements. These are: Education;

health; risks from drugs and other substances; sports and recreation; job opportunity;

economy; politics; literature art and culture; research; science and technology; civic education

and citizenship; resource utilization and environmental reservation; peace and security;

gender equality; human rights and; international relations. All in all, the scope of the policy is

to create democracy prone members of society and increase the capacities of youth within the

areas above.

Albeit implementation has been slow and thus far the only measures towards

realisation is the introduction of Youth Committees. These are meant to work on youth

specific issues and help implement the National Youth Policy in full. On politics specifically,

the policy promises to “Appreciate participation of young people in managing youth affairs,

formulation of policies and strategic plans in every phase of planning, implementation,

evaluation and decision making” (Union of Myanmar ND p. 11). Given all this, it seems

evident that the current government is not opposed to youth contributions. So, we might ask

ourselves if it is not also in the government's interest to facilitate youth organizations as such,

given their positive impacts on youth capabilities. This idea will be explored further at a later

stage in this research.

1.3 Objective(s) & Research Problem

This research is a case study on the needs of youth leaders and their situation in Myanmar

shortly after the national youth policy implementation has begun. The youth policy was

accepted in 2018 (Ministry of Information 2018) and begun by implementation of youth

committees. This research also analyses a variety of prerequisites that drive change for youth

4 | Page

in the country and explores the challenges youth leaders face in their endeavours. This

research makes its conclusion based on a range of determining factors and evidence presented

below. Determining the particular needs and obstacles of young up-and-coming leaders

preparing to transfer into roles of power in the future is something the literature on the needs

and importance of young people in Myanmar has not explored post the national youth

policy’s acceptance. If policy today was formulated in accordance with this research, then

attaining this objective would contribute to strengthening youth voices in general through

facilitation of youth leaders that contribute to sustainable peace in the country through their

work.

Su Mon Thazin Aung and Matthew Arnold (2018) wrote that “Establishing the

structures and processes for effective policymaking— from empirical research to policy

analysis to effective consultation and feedback—is critical to providing fundamental

guidance for policy actors, most of whom are grappling with many issues for the first time”.

This research results, then, in increased knowledge about how facilitation of young leaders in

such situations can be improved in Myanmar and thus become a part of the structures that

guide effective policy making towards youth leader facilitation, and with that, strengthened

youth voices in a context where their participation could prove fruitful.

1.4 Research Questions

It is within this context that two subsidiary research questions, and one primary research

question emerge. The 2:nd will build on the 1:st and the 3:rd will build on the cumulative

findings of the 1:st and 2: nd:

1. What are the needs and obstacles for young Myanmar leaders in terms of being

facilitated in the process of transferring into roles of power post Myanmar's

acceptance of a national youth policy?

2. To what degree are young leaders in Myanmar facilitated or impeded by the existing

cultural structures that affect transition of power between generations?

5 | Page

3. How can the structures or policies that affect the transfer of power in Myanmar more

efficiently accommodate a frictionless and peaceful transition?

1.5 Relevance

By and large, analysing and increasing the knowledge on the dynamics of the needs of youth

leaders and their progression towards roles of power directly contributes towards SDG target

16.7 - Ensure responsive, inclusive and representative decision-making (UNDESA 2020). In

Myanmar this is particularly important because:

“Lack of data, research, and evidence on the situation of youth in Myanmar limits

the ability of policy makers to implement policy and programming tailored to the

needs of young people. Additional research is therefore essential to ensure that

YPS policy and programming in Myanmar – and elsewhere – is driven by data,

analysis and evidence to ensure that proposed interventions are context relevant.

Research should be targeted in order to address gaps in knowledge for key

stakeholders, providing practical insights to inform action” (Paung Sei Facility

2017 p. 44)

This research targets a particular issue. It influences and ‘provide[s] practical insights’ or

‘informe[s] action’ in Myanmar and in doing so it shall provide a stepping stone for further

research on young leaders potential. As a result, it will also, crucially, influence Youth, Peace

and Security (YPS) policy directly in Myanmar. As such, it may, as stated above, contribute

to SDG target 16.7 in the country because lacking research on this topic, post- youth policy

implementation complicates the goals of SDG 16.7. This research contributes to

strengthening the voice of young Myanmar leaders to this end.

Furthermore, Myanmar is a highly relevant example of a context where YPS

dynamics can be studied. Myanmar has recently adopted their first national youth policy

(Ministry of Information 2018) and therefore provides a case where the developments

required to achieve such a substantial goal can be observed as well as effects of such

incremental changes soon after implementation. As such this research might contribute to

further studies on the topic elsewhere as well.

6 | Page

Lastly, on a similar note, Myanmar is not unique in its demographics when it comes

to youth majority and given Huesca Jr’s words: “With the changing nature of violent conflicts

and the widening reach of information and communication technologies, youth are at risk of

ever evolving radicalization strategies, especially in countries with standing internal

conflicts” (p. 57) - Myanmar included. Elevating our understanding of how to facilitate youth

is important to avoid radicalization and violence not only in Myanmar. This research

contributes by researching a unique yet revelatory case to this end.

7 | Page

2.0 Literature Review

This section will cover previous accounts and studies done on the topics of youth

involvement in decision making processes. However, no previous study exists to explore the

relation between generational studies, political and social structures and policy, and the needs

of young leaders - particularly not so in Myanmar. This study is therefore cumulative to the

combined knowledge of the studies reviewed here and not a specific study.

It is important to understand under which circumstances policy and structures may

change or potentially be improved, which in essence, is at the core of this research. A good

place to start is Su Mon Thazin Aung and Matthew Arnold’s research Managing Change:

Executive Policymaking in Myanmar (2018). In this research the authors set out to understand

what policymaking in Myanmar is, how it has gotten to be that way and how it can be

fortified for the future. The research concludes that data-driven policymaking is of utmost

importance in Myanmar.

Without going into too much detail, the authors find that Myanmar's history is one of

one-man policy making and as such, on the onset of democratic transition, the newly formed

government was left with only one leg to stand on. There were simply no structures in place

to process policy making decisions and as a result, policymaking is inefficient. Furthermore,

the authors set out to determine what changes can be made beyond constitutional reform,

which is likely to remain on Myanmar's to-do list for quite some time. Whilst there is no need

for us to review the intricacies of Myanmar’s process of executive government decision

making, though it is described in the research - we might instead turn directly to the proposed

solutions. These are, in short: Give priority to strengthening policymaking actors and

processes, engage partners and research to support this process; Prioritize effectivising

existing bodies; Better communicate government reform goals; Improve bureaucratic support

for policymakers; Rely more on data-driven, empirical, policy making; Diversify actors

involved in policy making processes; Make use of existing technical expertise and; consider

introducing a ‘coordination minister’ (Su Mon Thazin Aung, Arnold 2018). This research

aligns itself with many of the recommendations mentioned prior including, but not restricted

to, increased use of data-driven policy making. Furthermore, particularly ‘Diversify actors

8 | Page

involved in policy making processes’ is a solution which, if upheld, would contribute towards

SDG 16.7 and the facilitation of youth leaders.

We turn now to those scholars and institutes who have focused primarily on youth in

Myanmar. What has been done in this particular area before, and what the focus of those

researches has been. The Paung Sei Facility’s report Youth & Everyday Peace in Myanmar:

Fostering the untapped potential of Myanmar’s youth (2017) (PSF) is essentially a

framework for future YPS in Myanmar. It identifies a range of factors that constrict Myanmar

youth from participating in peace building and decision-making.

First there is the social hierarchical system of exclusion based on age previously

mentioned and the results: “These norms relegate youth to supportive roles in public

decision-making” (p. 24). Secondly, there is Absence of youth inclusion mechanisms - which

is considered the most serious impediment to youth inclusion in the peace process. There are

no ‘quotas, youth advisory bodies, channels for youth consultations, youth delegations’ to

name a few (p. 25). The third factor is the fact that historically, youth has been silenced when

it comes to raising political issues - and it has left a scar that is not so easily healed (Pp.

26-27). Fourth is youth access to funding, volunteerism has its limits in that oftentimes

capacities are drained as a result of the more financially sound opportunities individuals

might pursue elsewhere (p. 27). Fifth, differences within and between different youth

organizations limit the impact they could make if acting as a more cohesive unit (p. 28). And

lastly, sixth, a range of socio-economic barriers including education levels; displacement and

migration has forced and continue to force, large masses of people to flee, move or otherwise

be immobilized - this includes youth, who at times are not in a position to participate in any

sort of political space because of the inherent effects of looming conflict and the such. Drug

use is a final impending socio-economic factor as it halts processes by which young people

can contribute to their communities as well as results in lower levels of human security.

Since these are crucial in sustaining peace, controlling drug use is then, naturally, important

for enabling a space where youth can participate in any meaningful dialogue (Pp. 28-30).

PSF then proceeds to suggest 4 strategies for countering these issues and allow space

for Myanmar youth. Noteworthy is that, since the PSF’s writing, Myanmar has begun

implementation of a national youth policy (Ministry of Information 2018) which promises

change in line with the solutions recommended in the report (Union of Myanmar ND). Step 1

is to transform the views of the current generation of decision makers to allow for further

9 | Page

youth involvement in dialogue. The second is to strengthen the capacities of young leaders

and their respective organisations. Third is to turn the barriers into opportunities through

sound investment of social and economic capital in youth capabilities. The fourth strategy is

where this research takes its inspiration - it is to address the knowledge and analysis gap (p.

32). This gap does not only include what this research has set out to accomplish, but also

items such as needs assessment of young combatants or drivers of youth initiated violence.

This research was written after the implementation of a national youth policy, and hence

comparison of the results of this study and the Paung Sei Facility’s report might provide

insights as to the effectiveness of the solutions the report suggests and the effectiveness of the

national youth policy in addressing the challenges identified above.

Furthermore, it cannot be assumed that the factors affecting youth organisations

attempting to find footing in a peace process are the same as those faced by young leaders in

moving into roles of power, nor can it be assumed that the youth policy has not affected these

challenges. Such assumptions are what cannot be the basis of policy making, and therefore,

this research is required to better understand the specific dynamics of the transfer of power

from one generation to the next - so that policy regarding that specific topic, is in fact,

research driven.

One scholar who has put a lot of effort into researching the space Myanmar youth has

in different situations is Irena Grizelj. Her work touches primarily on young people in the

context of peace processes, and sometimes even more specifically, as part of negotiations.

The latter is the topic of her work Engaging the Next Generation: A Field Perspective of

Youth Inclusion in Myanmar’s Peace Negotiations (2018A) in which the author finds that

despite not being given a formal role in the peace negotiations, youth perceive themselves as

legitimate and did in fact play substantial roles in furthering the peace process at the time.

She writes that “if young people do not perceive their society to be legitimate and inclusive, it

increases the chances of them mobilizing to effect change: they can rebel against the

structures imposed by a society that was not constructed by them, nor for them” (p. 182).

Grizelj has also co-authored We Are Here: An integrated Approach to Youth Inclusive Peace

Processes together with Ali Altiok (2019). This is a substantial work on the same topic as

Engaging the Next Generation: A Field Perspective of Youth Inclusion in Myanmar’s Peace

Negotiations - however covers more ground and uses examples from a much wider selection

of interviews and information gathered not only in Myanmar. Whilst negotiations per say is

10 | Page

not of particular importance to our endeavour, the overarching results of this study is. For

instance, the authors find that in order to avoid elitism amongst youth - equal opportunity

must be given to those in marginalized situations beyond ‘being young’ - that is, those with

least access to formal political processes (p. 35). Such a sentiment is highly applicable to our

methodology as well, since young leaders in Myanmar might come from places of varying

opportunity.

One of Grizelj’s more Myanmar focused researches is The Youth Space of Dialogue

and Mediation in Myanmar (2017). One primary finding of this research is that young people

often provide the space for dialogue within their communities, they bridge the gap between

generations despite a hierarchical system that is working against them and create space for

peace, in this case particularly mediation (p. 9-11). And since Grizelj has elsewhere indicated

how young people often informally elect themselves a leader (Grizelj 2018B), we might then

conclude that this leader is the one to bridge the gap to the elder generation. Grizelj does not,

however, mention the challenges these young leaders face in doing so - which is where this

research aims to continue this discourse, using these findings as stepping stones.

Michael X. Delli Caprini, in his chapter Age and History: Generations and

Sociopolitical Change from the book Political Learning in Adulthood: A Sourcebook of

Theory and Research (1989) makes a range of interesting points on the general study of

socio-political power transfer between generations. One of these points is one that again

points to the importance of data-driven policy making. That is the fact that about every three

decades, the political decision-makers in any given country will inevitably find itself with a

new set of leadership which by their very nature is completely untested in their role as

national leaders (Delli Carpini 1989 p. 12). In the Myanmar context, this poses a particularly

large risk, because as we have previously discussed, the government apparatus lacks the

institutional capacity to tackle many of the issues currently faced by the country (Su Mon

Thazin Aung, Arnold, M 2018). So, we are then left not only with untested leaders, but with

untested leaders without the required tools to navigate the complex processes of national

leadership. Thus, the importance of this research is further reiterated. Delli Carpini writes that

“Citizens in democracies are expected to make autonomous decisions free from control or

interference by the state. Thus, younger generations need opportunities to practice skills of

information gathering, deliberation, discussion, and debate, which are the bases for making

informed political judgments” (p. 727) - the ability to practice these virtues is critical to

11 | Page

serving to counteract the issues of untested political leaders. This also points to the potential

in facilitating youth organizations.

12 | Page

3.0 Methodology

This section outlines the methodology of this study: the method used for data gathering,

the sampling and the criteria of the sample group as well as the interviewees legitimacy, it

considers the reliability and validity of the study as a whole and any ethical considerations

made are outlined here. Lastly, the limitations of the study as a whole are taken into account

before proceeding to present and analyse the findings.

3.1 Method

In essence, this research constitutes a case study of power dynamics in a highly complex

setting. Our particular study is twice justified since a case study can include a variety of

different elements and subjects of investigation (Bryman 2016 p. 62). This case study is

partially a revelatory case in its opportunistic analysis of immediate impact of significant

youth affair developments - Myanmar's national youth policy - and comparison to other’s

findings. It may also be considered a unique case given its complexity; the wide range of

stakeholders and their interests, recent developments for youths, conflict ridden past or

duration of conflict. But particularly, also, the political developments that have led to its

current state in terms of government and authority. As such, this research is significant in its

breaking of new ground when it comes to youths navigating a power shift in such a political

landscape specifically.

The data gathering method of choice is interviews. These interviews in themselves

might be considered semi-structured in so far as the questions are of a topical nature,

however, are always open ended. There are no yes/no questions. The interview questions

leave ample room to expand one's answer in any direction. For instance “Tell me about your

future - what does it look like, if you could decide?” is a very open ended question, yet it

pulls the interviewee in the direction of the topic of ‘future’ - which is all that it needs to do

to keep the conversation relevant to the research questions. Indeed questions such as “What

sort of help, if any, do you need to reach that future?” holds on to the previously established

topic of ‘future’ and adds the topic of ‘help’ - yet it does not suggest any sort of answer to the

13 | Page

interviewee. This is continuous throughout the interview. Adding a theme, but leaving the

answer open ended.

The interview changes topics twice, and the interviewees were made aware that this

will happen beforehand in order to avoid any uncomfortable surprises. Of course, the

interviewee was made aware that they may skip any question, or terminate the interview, at

any point. However, the topics discussed are not expected to cause too much discomfort

given the pilot interviews conducted beforehand and the nature of the topics. More on this in

Ethical Considerations.

3.2 Sampling

This research will adapt a qualitative methodology. Given the research questions asked,

Its primary method of data gathering will be to employ a purposive sampling (Bryman 2016).

Research question 1 adopts particularly criterion sampling as this is necessary. The specific

criteria required is firstly, the interviewee must be 18-29 years of age, as this is what the

UNSCR 2250 considers ‘youth’ (United Nations 2015); Secondly, the interviewee must be

considered a leader in their respective communities. Because of Irena Grizelj’s previous

finding that most youth organizations, in a democratically inspired way, elect themselves a de

facto leader (Grizelj 2018B) and given the researchers initial access to those meeting these

two criteria - no difficulty was posed in accessing this sampling group. The third criteria is

that the interviewee must envision for themselves a future in which their role as a leader is

transferred from being considered a ‘youth leader’ to any form of ‘elevated’ decision-making

role, or any other role of power. If this criteria is not met, research question 1 falls short

simply because the interviewee is not the correct target sample, unless the person interviewed

has ample knowledge of the situation of youths, despite not being one themselves. Say for

instance, that the interviewee, when asked about their future, does not envision a future as a

leader - then the answers to what challenges this person faces is not those faced by a young

leader moving into a future leader role and does therefore not provide information that

answers the research question, in that case, the question might be rephrased as to ask for the

challenges faced by youth leaders in general - although, again, that requires the interviewee to

have substantial knowledge of the youth situation in Myanmar. Another way to account for

this criteria was also employed; a simple snowball sampling strategy - a snowballing strategy

14 | Page

is likely to result in interviewees who cover all the criteria, which in combination with the

researchers initial access to the sampling frame, yielded results. Research question 2 and 3

however encompasses those with substantial knowledge of youth affairs in Myanmar and is

not restricted to youth leaders themselves. The snowball strategy yielded results for this

sampling group as well. Regarding sample size, as suggested by Alan Bryman (2016), the

sample was considered complete when the answers started to overlap to a large degree.

The 9 interviews conducted in this research represent a wide variety of participants

from within the bounds of these criteria. They were conducted via Skype. It encompasses

leaders from various youth organizations, youth activists, social enterprise entrepreneurs,

community leaders, youth organization presidents and those who have worked closely with

key youth affairs in Myanmar for years. The participants have worked with issues such as

community capacity building, education and critical thinking promotion, Myanmar youth

policy development, research consultancy on youth issues, civic engagement and social

awareness among youth, youth and diplomacy, reconciliation and much else. These

interviews are considered legitimate key informant interviews given the participants' exposure

to, knowledge of and roles within Myanmar's current youth apparatus and their respective

communities (Bryman 2016, p. 432; p. 692). The differences amongst these participants

whilst remaining within the sampling frame re-enforces this research claim to replicability

and thus, legitimacy. The participants come from varying parts of the country and consist of

those of different socio-economic backgrounds and genders, though no particular differences

depending on gender were found. Indeed, they all have in common that they are considered

youth leaders by their communities or organizations. They are within what the UNSCR2250

considers the ‘age of youths’ (with one exception, a participant with substantial knowledge of

youth affairs) and they all seek change and a future where they have achieved a role of further

leadership and/or power and therefore fits the sampling group required.

3.3 Epistemological Considerations; Reliability & Validity

Any discussion on reliability and validity when applied (or not) to qualitative research

ought to begin with a statement about the author's point of departure when it comes to issues

of epistemology (Bryman 2016 Pp. 390-391). For the sake of transparency of methodology, it

is important to know that the author of this research departs from a social constructivist

15 | Page

perspective - rather than a positivist one. As a result, the concepts of reliability and validity

were not directly applied to this research as they constitute a positivist discourse which is

especially inappropriate when inquiring about the challenges perceived by people.

Regardless of the findings, it is indeed “impossible to ‘freeze’ a social setting” (p.

383) and replicability of any social setting is impossible - therefore nothing can be said about

the reliability of a qualitative study as such (Bryman, A 2016 p. 383)

Similarly, the validity of qualitative research cannot be guaranteed - since the data

gathered is dependent on the answers of another, whom the researcher, beyond the phrasing

of questions, cannot expect to anticipate beforehand. Thus, ‘the degree to which the study

measures what it claims to measure’ - that is, validity, falls short when it comes to dealing

with open ended questions, as the answers given cannot be anticipated. In short, since

different answers may be given to a select question - nothing can be said about the validity of

that question and in turn the results. Furthermore, validity, as Bryman put it “carries

connotations of measurement” (p. 383), and a measure is not the intended outcome of this

research.

However, the ‘quality’ of the qualitative research has not been left unaddressed, but

rather, other measures have been considered. Primarily, the research methods employed have

been written in an as detailed manner as possible, as well as made transparent through that

description. Likewise, the findings have been given significant attention to detail in their

descriptions and exemplification. This ensures that the context in which this study took place

is taken into account when interpreting the findings at any given time (Bryman 2016 p.

394-395).

3.4 Ethical Considerations

Some of the primary ethical considerations made in this research is the adaptation of the

principles outlined in the All European Academics publication The European Code of

Conduct for Research Integrity (2017). These are as follows:

“Reliability in safeguarding the quality of the research, which is reflected in the

design, method, analysis and use of resources; Honesty in developing,

implementing and scrutinising research, and in reporting and informing others

16 | Page

about research in an open, fair, complete and objective way; Respect for

colleagues, research participants, society, ecosystems, cultural heritage and the

environment; Accountability: for research from idea to publication, for

management and organisation, for education, supervision and mentorship, and for

their wider consequences.” (All European Academies 2017)

These principles, particularly respect, do not only correspond to our previous discussion on

transparency of research as a method for ensuring its quality - but also add several other

responsibilities including respect for cultural heritage and research participants, which is

particularly important in this research, as it deals with such a heritage in the form of the age

based hierarchy previously discussed. This research makes no assumptions about the positive

or negative effects of this structure and does not seek to judge, change or critique it but

merely to understand and record its effects on young leaders. This research does not consider

itself to be in the business of problem solving, and whatever the results of this research, it is

ultimately up to the policymakers and other stakeholders to evaluate the findings and decide

on appropriate actions. In light of all this, the research participants were treated with the

utmost respect in regard to these questions and were at no point confronted about any

potential negative or positive effects of this hierarchy but were left to make that distinction on

their own.

Regarding the interviews, the ethical principles of the Swedish organization

Vetenskapsrådet were adapted. These consist of four recommendations that ensure no

assumptions are made about the participant and that their privacy, identity and way of life is

protected - amongst other things. The four principles involve, in short: Ensuring voluntary

consent to participation in the research; Informing the individual that all necessary

precautions to ensure their anonymity will be taken - and following up on these promises;

Informing the participant about the purpose of the research, its scope and objectives and;

Making sure the individual is comfortable in their role as interviewee and ensuring their

knowledge about their right to terminate the interview at any point and skipping any questions

they are not comfortable answering (Vetenskapsrådet ND). Lastly, the interviewer ensured

consent as to the recording of the interview.

17 | Page

3.5 Limitations, Delimitations & Further study

This research is based solely on findings from interviews with youths, or those closely

related. No interviews with elderly people, current government figures per say or

high-ranking politicians has taken place. Whilst their insight might be useful in determining

the challenges faced by youth leaders - it is not strictly necessary, particularly so given the

social constructivist point of departure of this research. The primary source of data for

challenges faced by youth leaders must be youth leaders themselves. Nevertheless, the

findings are technically restricted to those experienced by youth leaders. The findings do not

take into consideration what are thought to be challenges by others than the youth leaders in

question (With one exception). This also means that the findings are subject to interpretation

and it is up to each individual to either agree or disagree as to the interpretations made in this

study.

Likewise, a delimitation is that the views of the younger generation is derived directly

from a primary source whereas the views of the older generation is derived from secondary

source materials. This research compares the views of the younger and older generation but

does not confirm the claims about the views of the older generation that the younger

generations have made through interviews with them. This research relies instead on prior

research and the trustworthiness of the interview participants in establishing what social

structures and views the older generation supports. Though this is assumed to be legitimate as

the findings derived from the interviews as to the views of the older generation overlap

between interviews to a very large extent, which was taken to be sufficient for the purposes

of this study. Though further enquiry into the views of the older generation is subject to

further research that might drive future policy.

Another limitation proved to be language. The interviews were conducted without a

translator and as a result the spoken language, English, was not the first language of either the

participant nor the interviewer. This may have restricted communication or expression of

thought or it may have derived meaning from some statements. Though, in almost all cases,

the participants primary point seems to come across. This might restrict the findings in that a

person wishing to express a thought, but isn’t finding the words, might decide to either

rephrase to a simplified version of that thought or not express it all together. In that case there

18 | Page

might be missing data. Even if the interviewer is assumed to ask all the right questions to

derive the data required, this might restrict the outcomes.

Yet another limitation - whether the participants are answering what is assumed to be

the conventional opinion - requires speculation and is therefore not necessarily a truism.

Although, as have previously been mentioned, the validity of a certain question cannot be

guaranteed due to their open-ended nature - a person answering what is expected of them

would have implications for the legitimacy of the data gathered. Though, viewed in another

way, whether the challenges mentioned by the participant are shaped by increased

connectedness between youths or by a sort of ‘collective consciousness’ between those

working in the same fields, or whether they are the experiences of each participant

individually hardly matters. Regardless of which of these options led to the answer given, the

answer is derived from the challenges faced by a youth leader. This limitation only becomes a

limitation if a participant has been affected by others than youth leaders in the answer they

give. Whilst not strictly true, interviews with people of the older generation might shed some

light on this issue. As would questions about how the participant came to their conclusions -

these have not been asked. In the absence of this ‘safety’ mechanism, the answers given must

be assumed to be legitimate. This ‘limitation’ might be accounted for by further research in

the area. Data from bias participants can only produce generalizable answers in a likeminded

sampling group, if that participant is the sole source of data.

19 | Page

4.0 Analytical Framework: Generational Change &

Political Socialization

This analytical framework consists of two parts. Two different conceptual understandings,

which paired together and in combination with the previous understanding of related

phenomena, outlined in the literature review above, make up the looking glass through which

our interpretation was derived. It begins with an account of the concept of Socialization as

understood by Michael X. Delli Caprini (1989) and Constance A. Flanagan (2004) and others

in relation specifically to youth organizations, media and youth-led socialization. Followed by

an understanding of how one generation transforms into the next by, again, Michael X. Delli

Caprini, in his chapter Age and History: Generations and Sociopolitical Change from the

book Political Learning in Adulthood: A Sourcebook of Theory and Research (1989). A

summary of this analytical framework can be found at the end of this chapter.

4.1 Political Socialization

“"History" is a summary term for the combination of the social, political,

economic, cultural, intellectual, technological, and natural environments of

particular systems over time. A "generation" is an age cohort whose values,

attitudes, opinions, and/or behaviors have been shaped in relatively stable and

unique ways by history” (Delli Caprini 1989 p. 42)

Any discussion on the development of generations must be preceded by one on

Socialization, as that is how they develop. It might be defined as “the process by which

people learn the norms, values, and beliefs of a particular system (or subsystem), as well as

how and when these norms, values, and beliefs should be expressed” (Delli Caprini p. 46).

For this to happen “Research has consistently emphasized the role of families in shaping the

political orientations of youth, of schools in training young people to become engaged in their

larger societies, and of community or government organizations in giving young people

opportunities to practice and develop civic skills” (Hava, Taft 2011 p. 1500). Elsewhere

20 | Page

similar arguments read “Socializing agents that recur throughout the literature include the

family, schools, peers, and the media” (Warren, Wicks 2011 p. 157).

Constance A. Flanagan gives one example of where socialization takes place for

youth leaders in her chapter Volunteerism, Political Socialization and Civic Engagement

from the book Handbook of Adolescent Psychology (2004). She found that for youth this

process might involve early participation in community activities, programs or organizations

and that early association with such institutions affect later civic engagement (p. 725).

Indeed, Flanagan found that the degree to which an individual associate themselves, and finds

comfort in, such community-based organizations affect their involvement in that

communities polity both in youth and later in adulthood (p. 725). Specifically, youth

organizations are found to shape the character of young people and provide a space in which

young people can contest the status quo (p. 726). However this is not always the case and, as

Hava R. Gordon and Jessica K. Taft (2011) found: “Teenage activists are critical of models

of civic engagement that do not accord any real political power to youth in the present and

encounter these models throughout schools and various community organizations” (p. 1512).

If actual power is not accredited to a youth organization, a person may form a negative

connotation towards participation and as a result, a different socialization process to what

youth organizations ‘offers’ has occurred.

Elsewhere, it has been argued youth organizations sustain democracy. This is because

they are found to make space for youth to “exercise their voice, test out ideas, disagree with

each other, and make meaningful contributions to their communities” (p. 726) - which in turn

is thought to build trust amongst those participants, and trust is thought to be an important

trait of democracy (p. 726). Along with the previous mention of ‘testing the untested’ (Delli

Caprini 1989 p. 727; Su Mon Thazin Aung, Arnold 2018) through exposure to such

environments - it is considered, in this research, to be an important experience in the lives of

these youth. All in all it may be in the interest of policy makers to facilitate the existence and

prosperity of youth organizations, because they by nature create democracy prone members

of society with an interest in the polity of their communities - which is likely to increase the

chances of a peaceful transition of power. How such facilitation might look however, will

depend on the findings in relation to the challenges faced by youth leaders. A necessary

distinction to make here though, is that youth organizations also may have the reverse effect,

in which case support for them for obvious reasons is less desirable. s

21 | Page

It has been suggested that adult-led political socialization of the likes described above

is not always preferable. “The idea that youth themselves are the best people to educate other

youth (and not just to communicate to other youth) gives young activists an important and

distinctive role within political socialization processes and within social movements more

broadly” (Hava, Taft 2011 p. 1518). In that case, the result of socialization - values and

beliefs of a person - will be significantly different to adult-led socialization.

Another way in which political socialization occurs differently than planned youth

organizations is through the media. Ron Warren and Robert H. Wicks (2011) writes that

“Teens are far less prone to consume traditional news sources such as network TV, favouring

instead online news sources and local forms of political and civic engagement (e.g.,

volunteerism and activism) to traditional forms (e.g., voting). Social networking media also

play an increasingly important socializing role” (p. 160). In the same way that youth led

socialization will result in a different set of values than adult-led socialization, so will

media-led socialization.

In our case, political socialization, in short, is the process in which the youth of this

study learned the values, beliefs and which social structures to condemn and which to

appraise in Myanmar society. If these values, beliefs and structures as well as how they have

been developed can be identified within the interviews, that gives us a hint as to what

‘generational change’ is occurring in Myanmar at the time. If the results of socialization is a

person believing in similar values to an older person does - that means old values, norms and

beliefs are still prominent in that society - likely as a result of adult-led ‘planned’

socialization. If the result is a person believing in a different set of values to an older

generation, then that older generation's values have been overridden by others - a completely

different dynamic then exists in that society, which would be a result of any combination of

the factors influencing youths outlined above. It might be as a result of negative connotations

of the current socialization process as it does not yield power for youths or as a result of

socialization taking place in a different social space than that provided by engaged adults in

youth organizations.

22 | Page

4.2 Generational Change

This next section outlines the three types of ‘generational change’ Delli Caprini (1989)

have identified. If we can identify how this change happens in Myanmar, we are one step

closer to understanding the dynamics which drive change in Myanmar. These types of change

are: Destructive Change; Restructuring Change and; Adaptive Change.

Destructive change has the least potential to make a lasting impact on any current

institutional structures. Delli Caprini describes how ‘deauthorization’ of old values and norms

is more likely than ‘authorization’ of a new set of such values. That is because

‘deauthorization’ can happen early in a person's life cycle and has no inherent requirements,

whereas ‘authorization’ of a new set of principles requires organization, which is more likely

to happen later in life - by which point the socialization process is likely to have had enough

impact to subdue any potential yearn for deauthorization in a generation - that is, when the

results of socialization creates youths with similar values to an older generation. In short,

change does not occur when every citizen has similar values and beliefs. Destructive change

might be likened to how, as Grizelj (2018A) puts it, “political destabilization as the younger

generation confronts structures they do not support” (p. 182). The reason deauthorization is

not likely to change the system is that doing so requires an alternative, which leads us to the

second type of generational change, Restructuring Change.

In Restructuring Change the generation seeking change has the capacity to provide

the support that authorization of new ideas requires - that is, they might have both the

leadership capacities and the movement size to make a lasting impact on any institutional

structures. Such change is not likely, albeit another form of the same kind of change is when

a generation gathers behind an already existing, perhaps new, structure and supports that,

which is more likely. This kind of generational change will occur when a generation is

socialized to believe in something ‘new’ - be it of their making or otherwise.

Third, a rather different take on the concept of generational change. Delli Caprini

describes how “generations develop from cracks in the wall of socialization” (p. 47) by which

he means that institutional change, the ‘rules of the game’, change naturally due to the

ever-changing environment in which they exist. And when institutions change, so does the

results of the process of socialization, and hence, generations form - just as described in the

23 | Page

citation at the top of this chapter. Now this process of changing socialization means that it is

in fact the older generation who is at odds with the environment in which they exist. They

find themselves in a existence where the structures that socialized them no longer are the

norm. Adaptive Change is a way for that ever-changing environment, ruled by the course of

history, to find correspondence in a new generation - willing to accept it’s new ‘rules of the

game’, it’s socialization process. In this view, the younger generation is not the ones

‘conflicting’ with society, the older is. This type of generational change occurs when a

generation is socialized to attain different values to an older generation but does not actively

have to engage to achieve change.

4.3 Summary & Synthesis

This section summarizes how these concepts and understandings relate to each other and

how they will answer the research questions.

Socialization gives us a hint as to what type of generational change is occurring and

will thus need to be identified from the interviews. It is assumed here that a generational

change indeed is occurring, as that is inevitable. What type of generational change is

occurring is determined by what values, beliefs and structures are considered important by a

society, that is, the results of the socialization process. These will either correspond to a set

of values held by the older or younger generation. If youths are socialized under the presence

of norms and values held by the older generation, the generational change will be destructive

and by the time youths have the capacity to achieve change, the socialization process - led by

adults, will have soothed the desire for change. Hence, no practical change will be occurring.

The major difference between destructive or even restructuring types of generational change

and adaptive change is that during these processes the youth are actively ‘fighting’ a set of

already existing norms and values - that is, the norms and values set by the older generation.

If youths are socialized under the presence of norms and values that are not corresponding to

the older generations that is as a result of either the ever-changing environment of the society

in which they exist. For instance, if international norms and values override those posed by

an older generation. In this case generational change is adaptive because the norms and

values of the society of these youths are not being fought by the youths themselves - they are

already on board, they have accepted the rules of the game - but are resisted, rather, by the

24 | Page

older generation. Or, viewed in another way, if youths are socialized to attain different values

and beliefs than the older generation, generational change might be restructuring. The major

difference, again, is that in this type of change youth will be actively seeking change.

Research question 1 is by nature answered on descriptive terms. These were derived

directly from the replies of the interviewees and required no analysis beyond the recognition

that ‘reality and experience are, to some degree, interchangeable’ as previously established.

Research Question 2 requires analysis, which was done using this framework. The

answer will depend on what type of generational change is occurring. If restructuring change

is occurring, we can conclude that the structures, traditions, norms etc. are not impeding

youth leaders much - since the generational change is already underway - in essence, that

battle is already won. If destructive change, we can conclude the opposite. Youth leaders do

not have the ‘organizational power’ to induce change or are not able to ‘authorize a new set

of principles’ and by the time they do, no change is desired - thus they are thus impeded by

existing structures, traditions, norms etc. If generational change is adaptive, we can conclude

both yes and no, so to speak. Because the youth leaders themselves are not undermined by

these structures or norms - they are ‘already on board’. But still they might be considered

impeded by those same notions as the older generation resist the change youths seek.

Research question 3 also depends on what type of generational change is occurring

since that determines whom policy to facilitate change should target. For instance, should it

be to ‘Give priority to strengthening policymaking actors and processes’ as Su Mon Thazin

Aung and Matthew Arnold suggest or should it ‘strengthen the capacities of young leaders

and their respective organisations’ as the Paung Sei Facility’s report concluded? Whether

generational change is destructive, restructuring or adaptive will impact which of these

suggestions are more suitable and who is most suitable to target.

25 | Page

5.0 Discussion

This section covers the findings of the study and analyses them. These have been kept in

one chapter because research question 1 is answered solely based on findings, whereas

research question 2 and 3 requires analysis as well as are based on the answers found in

research question 1.

This section is split into three parts, corresponding to one research question each. It

begins by covering, simply, what the respondents found to be the biggest challenge in

achieving the dream the participants desired in their futures. Secondly, it covers whether, or

to what degree, traditional structures, norms or values are a hindrance for youth leaders in

achieving that dream. And lastly how such structures could better facilitate generational

change.

5.1 Research Question 1: Post- Youth Policy Challenges

The participants were asked what the biggest issue they faced in achieving the dreams they

desired after the participant had explained what that dream entailed. Most of the participants

are youth leaders themselves and most desire a future in a decision-making role, in one way

or another. A position of power, of a decision-making role, does not only apply to those

pursuing political careers but also those in various businesses or other sectors. If a participant

was seeking a future including any form of leadership, they have been accounted for in this

summary. In some cases, the participant was not seeking a leadership position themselves,

and was then asked about what they thought the challenges faced by youth leaders are, since

they possess vast knowledge of this. Below follows a summary of the responses - Table 1 - in

a non-prioritized order. Followed by an overview of the final findings - Table 2.

Table 1: Summary of Challenges Faced by Youth Leaders

A Financial Restrictions

B Lack of Mental/ Psychological support

C Representing Everyone in a Community

D Lack of Support from Society or poor view of Politician

E Coordinating Different Ethnicities in one Organization

26 | Page

F Lack of Government Support

G Lack of Education

H Language Barriers

I Lack of trust from Older Generations

J Interference from Ethno-Politics

K Interference from Conflict

L Legal or State Harassment

Table 2: Challenges Faced by Youth Leaders (Vertical) by Interview Number (Horizontal)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 (9)

A ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

B ● ● ● ●

C ●

D ● ● ● ●

E ●

F ● ● ● ● ● ●

G ● ● ● ●

H ●

I ● ● ● ●

J ● ● ●

K ●

L ●

From these summaries we might derive various interesting observations. Firstly, the primary

challenge for youth leaders is ‘Financial Restrictions’. Not being able to afford or having

great difficulty to afford chasing the future they seek. 8 out of 9 participants mentioned

financial challenges. For instance, one participant said:

“[w]e don't have any funding from the government, and the government is not

actually supporting this kind of NGO or research organization- they don't support

it at all. So this is a huge challenge, we have to invest ourselves, we have to look

for money a lot from other organizations, including international donors. And that

is the biggest barrier” (Youth leader, Chin State, 25/3-2020)

27 | Page

Another, when asked about financial opportunities, that.

“And, for example, in other country the young people can get education loan

from government, but here we don’t have that kind of chance - so that is also a

big challenge” (Youth Leader & Youth Development Worker, Chin State,

6/4-2020)

The second most mentioned challenge was ‘lack of government support’, which was

mentioned by 6 participants. The interviewees who mentioned this as a category all were

frustrated with how the government was not assisting them in their endeavours or did not let

them as youth leaders contribute in politics or decision-making. When asked about how the

government assists him in reaching his future goals, one participant said that:

“[w]hat they are lacking is, they don't engage us, they don't engage the

community, they don't open the floor - they don't build the bridge between the

community” (Youth Leader & INGO representative, Chin State, 31/3-2020)

A range of challenges were mentioned 4 times each by different participants, these were:

‘lacking support from society or politics being portrayed in a bad light’ - which is a rather

wide category with a lot of meanings, but what all participants had in common amongst those

who mentioned this was that doubt or hesitation directed towards them achieving their goals

came from institutions, civilians or family. Closely tied was often the ‘need for mental or

psychological support’ - the importance of it - was reiterated by 4 participants. Oftentimes as

a result of the doubt cast by a range of structural notions such as lacking belief in their goals

or whether they could achieve them or not. One participant said that:

“OK, so in our country according to our country situation, is like, participating in

protest, or participating in politics is like doing some kind of crime. People

around, some relatives or some neighbours will see us like a criminal” (Youth

Leader, Yangon, 20/4-2020)

28 | Page

And then:

“Another thing is psychologically. Everybody who wants to become a politician

they need it. Because like, most people don't support to become politician”

(Youth Leader, Yangon, 20/4-2020)

Another participant stressed the importance of the presence of people who can provide mental

support - in this case, his girlfriend:

“Maybe I do bad thing, or good thing or maybe I do wrong thing or right thing -

she will support me and will give me some recommendation or some comment or

something like that. She will advice me” (Youth Leader and CSO representative,

Karen State, 28/3 - 2020)

One other participant was himself in a position to provide guidance for youth leaders, he said

that:

“It's also about confidence. A lot of people in Myanmar grow up without it. The

culture does not really allow young people to speak up what they believe in, also

do their own experience meant. So what I usually do is I build confidence in them.

To be a confident person in their life” (Myanmar Policy Maker & Peacebuilder,

16/4-2020)

And also explained how:

“So when my grandfather tell me about colonial times it is no longer relevant to

power dynamic right? We are struggling for democracy and etc. However I think

this history is very much important. So when they explain about how they have

worked hard, that really inspires me. I think, when I also explain about my

struggle in my life, I do believe that will inspire younger generation” (Myanmar

Policy Maker & Peacebuilder, 16/4-2020)

29 | Page

Lack of education opportunities or ‘lack of education’ was mentioned as a barrier to success 4

times. One participant stressed the difficulty in running an organization without proper

education in management skills another stressed the importance of informal learning tools

when asked about his needs in order to become a politician:

“So for me personally I have never studied politics as a school major. It’s all

informal learning, so I want to know something I have to google it, or watch a

YouTube or i have to read the books, like, it is an informal way of learning. So

for me, I need it” (Youth Leader, Yangon, 20/4-2020)

Lastly ‘lacking trust from the older generation’ was mentioned and problematized often. It

was often tied to lacking government support and the government and the elder generation

was often equated with each other.

“The role of these elder people, normally in Myanmar is that they are sitting in

the decision-making level - so they don't want to give that role, that seat to the

young people, even if they are qualified. So they always wanna [sic] be control,

they don't want give to the other people. So that is a big challenge” (Youth

Leader & Youth Development Worker, Chin State, 6/4-2020)

When asked about the role of the older generation, another stated that:

“I think the older generation, the main important role that they have to play is they

have to engage more with young people - they have to have more dialogue with

young people. We as young people would like to have more dialogue with them.

We would like to engage with them. But the difficult thing is that they won't give

us opportunity” (Youth leader, Chin State, 25/3-2020)

Though other challenges were mentioned, these were the primary challenges found in the

aftermath of the national youth policy implementation phase begun. Though these challenges

were most frequently mentioned, that does not mean the less often mentioned challenges do

30 | Page

not pose real issues and significant problems for youth leaders attempting to attain a role of

power. These too must be considered important in the analysis to come.

5.2 Research Question 2: International Norms & Socialization

To begin answering this research question, the first step is to identify the socialization

process that shaped these youths. What are the values they believe in? What are the structures

they oppose, and which do they support? The main themes found might be summarized as

‘exposure to a global environment’ and ‘opposition of government and the older generation’.

In most cases, when the participant says ‘exposure to global norms’; ‘youth are more

progressive’ or; ‘youth are flexible’ - they mean youth are more in line with democratic

trends, in the broadest sense possible. They find this progressive because it is different to

what the older generation or government is in line with. For instance, one participant said,

when asked what his message to the people who ‘really need to hear what he has to say’ was,

that:

“From the younger generation to the older generation, I would like to say - just

trust the young people, we have the new era which is not like the older generation.

We have the new era, the things we are facing is not the things that they have

faced. It’s not the same. So we have to attempt in the new situation or new

challenges” (Youth Leader, Yangon, 20/4-2020)

Democratic trends are found in the statements about what the interviewees believe in for

example ‘Universal healthcare’, ‘freedom of expression’, ‘support for workers’, ‘Animal

rights’, negative sentiments towards nationalism, ‘indigenous rights’, ‘civic engagement’,

‘gender equality’ or pro-LGBTQ sentiments. It is a progression from what the older

generation believe in. This is what all participants have in common - they are working to

change something.

Another example of this wish to attain change is the various denunciations of social

structures and old norms that the older generation or the government believe in. Most

interviewees expressed similar views. For example, one interviewee said that:

31 | Page

“Even when he or she are qualifying to become MP or policymaker, but most of

these elder people say ‘Oh, they don’t have enough experience’ or ‘You are very

young, just wait until 60 years’. So this is also big challenge for young people in

Myanmar” (Youth Leader & Youth Development Worker, Chin State, 6/4-2020)

Another participant said this about the government:

“But I think they are lacking the proper technique of considering young people to

be a change maker. Instead they are treating young people like, I don’t know how

to say, patronizing, you know? Like, ‘You guys have to follow me, you have to

listen to me’ - so it’s kind of a norm these days” (Myanmar Policy Maker &

Peacebuilder, 16/4-2020)

So, in other words the participants are unhappy with an old social structure that is, the

mindset of the older generation. They want to put new structures in place. The most

prominent old such structure is the non-inclusion of youth or youth leaders in

decision-making - most participants were trying to change that structure to align itself more

with ‘global norms’ - in this case those norms are UNSCR 2250. That is likely why a lot of

the participants note things like:

“[I] think it is important that young people, before they are being narrowed

down into the single narrative - it is very important we give them exposure

toward the other community. Whether they like it or not, it is good for us to

expose to wide variety of people, wide variety of ideology of faith etc. I mean,

whether I like Islam or not is my judgement, but I need to expose, you know? To

different ideology” (Myanmar Policy Maker & Peacebuilder, 16/4-2020)

Another participant noted that:

“The older generation should actually listen to the younger population first. And

make sure the younger generation choose to listen. They must be from different

background, not just from one background but they tend to be very smart and very

32 | Page

clever, very obedient - the younger population - their voices should be different

and diverse. They should be vibrant” (Youth Activist & Advocate, Yangon,

26/4-2020)

We might, then, conclude that since the participants have been socialized in a process that led

them to come to these conclusions or opinions - the socialization process does not align with

the older generations values, but rather with ‘global trends’.

These ‘global trends’ - the importance of youth inclusion - have been brought about

by an increased exposure to international media and thoughts that have overridden the older

generations norms and thoughts on the matter of youth inclusion. This has created a new

socialization process. Both media contact and increased youth-to-youth contact is considered

important socializing agents in the literature (Hava, Taft 2011; Warren, Wicks 2011) and thus

it is not strange that this new socialization process has developed. That new ideas come from

international exposure through the media is found in most interviews in one way or another.

One participant said, when asked about what he meant by youth being more progressive, that:

“First of all because of the internet access. Most of the older generation in our

country don’t know how to use the social media or don't know how to use the

internet. So the younger generation live in the other area and they have the very

good internet access and they can learn anything through the social media or

other internet websites. So the younger can learn anything in any situation”

(Youth Leader, Yangon, 20/4-2020)

Another said that:

“The world now is like a global village where we are connected mostly through

internet, social media and everything, that’s something that older generation didn't

have so it’s really hard for them to catch up with us. And for the younger

generation they can’t really wait for the older generation to understand what we

are doing. And it will happen the same so different cultural, religious, structural

differences - the way we think, perceive and they way we are exposed to the

33 | Page

world is different. We have different resources through internet, through you

know, digital devices” (Youth Activist & Advocate, Yangon, 26/4-2020)

And that:

“The younger generation have different creative ideas, exposed to different world

and they can just get anything they want, informations, it’s just in their hands”

(Youth Activist & Advocate, Yangon, 26/4-2020)

Another reiterated how:

“But, because we are more exposed to internet and lots of media etc there may be

some different thinking”

And lastly how:

“Currently we have, you know, we cannot do Facebook gathering [because of

COVID-19] so young people are shifting into more digital platform where there

are more positive messages, they are connecting across Myanmar” (Myanmar

Policy Maker & Peacebuilder, 16/4-2020)

Increased connectedness between youths through networks of contacts might also explain the

changing socialization process. Multiple youth leaders stressed the importance of this.

Network connectedness was on their own organization’s agenda, they said that:

“So, now we are trying to promote the networking system among youth

organizations, and I’d say it quite improved compared to the last year or previous

years” (Youth Leader & INGO representative, Chin State, 31/3-2020)

And:

34 | Page

“And also, as much as possible I provide information and network for them to be

able to connect for better opportunity to study etc.” (Myanmar Policy Maker &

Peacebuilder, 16/4-2020)

As such, generational change might be seen as adaptive or restructuring. Previously we

determined that one difference between adaptive and restructuring change is that in

restructuring youths will be actively trying to attain change, whereas in adaptive youth are

more ‘along for the ride’. In Myanmar, this distinction is not easy to make. It is restructuring

in the sense that Myanmar youth are putting their support in already existing ideas gathered

from an international community and attempting to attain change and have made a lasting

impact on existing institutions - the youth policy. Generational change in Myanmar is

adaptive in that the older generation indeed finds themselves in a position where their norms

and values are no longer the primary component of the socialization process - refusal to allow

youth leader engagement points to them resisting change, rather than youth fighting to attain

it. However, given the immense efforts of some youth leaders and organizations - youth

cannot be said not to fight to attain change and change, then, is restructuring.

Given recent developments such as the youth policy, youth might be seen as partially

successful in their endeavours to become legitimate decision-makers. Youth leaders, then, are

not overly hindered by the social structures, traditions, norms or values of Myanmar society

but rather by more ‘factual’ or ‘directly impacting’ items such as finance or legal harassment.

What is interesting though, is that most participants did feel that they were excluded

from decision making, as a result of the older generations echoing structural exclusion of

youths. So, we must be sure to give some leeway to this conclusion. Although youth

committees are now in place, and a youth policy exists (Ministry of Information 2018) -

youth cannot yet be said to have fully succeeded in becoming recognized decision-making

actors. At the same time, change is in fact occurring in line with the prospects of

restructuring change. So, change is underway, but also in its infancy.

5.3 Research Question 3: Targeted Improvement

Firstly; This research reaffirms and supports the findings of the Paung Sei Facility (PSF)

(2017) report Youth & Everyday Peace in Myanmar: Fostering the untapped potential of

35 | Page

Myanmar’s youth as to the challenges faced. This leads to a range of conclusions in and of

itself. Firstly, the challenges faced by youth leaders are similar both before and after

Myanmar had accepted their national youth policy.

Secondly; This study found that the beliefs, values and the social structures youth

leaders support post-national youth policy correspond to the solutions proposed by the PSF

report, which was prior to the national youth policy. It could then be said that the solutions

proposed in the PSF report have been contributing factors to these youth’s socialization, and

in turn to the youth policy’s acceptance. This is because the new socialization process that

moulded these youths led to restructuring change which promises change in practice. As

such, the recommendations made by the PSF report might be seen as efficient in attaining

change - since they contributed to the youth policy being accepted. That is, of course, if the

PSF report had that level of impact.

More realistically however, the recommendations made in the PSF report might be

considered inefficient, since the challenges faced by youth leaders in various areas are the

same both before and after those recommendations being adopted by youths. The Paung Sei

Facility (2017) report recommended ‘Engage with the views and behaviours of

decision-makers’ and claims that “Engaging and transforming the hierarchal views of

non-youth is therefore key to transforming the status quo of low levels of youth inclusion” (p.

33). This recommendation is considered step 1 in the process of achieving greater youth

participation. And indeed, this researach found that youths are open to cross generational

engagement, one participant said, when asked what his final sentiment of the interview was,

that:

“So, I want to promote young people and cooperation with old people because

they have a huge experience. And the young people are huge also and the

experiences, so we can change the world together” (Youth Leader and CSO

representative, Karen State, 28/3 - 2020).

Another noted similar sentiments, saying:

“In our generation, a lot of people understand that we need to negotiate with them,

the older generation. We are like middle one, there is older and younger

36 | Page

generation. So, we are trying to understand the younger generation and the older

generation. But a lot of people don’t give a lot of space for us. Yeah, this is a

problem” (Youth leader & Social Enterprise Entrepreneur, 5/4-2020)

The Paung Sei Facility (2017) report recommends strengthening such engagement through

guaranteed youth-inclusion mechanisms – the Youth Committees. Although hesitation

towards youth committees exist, as one participant who was engaged with the committees

expressed:

“I work at the township level, so I took my position as a CSO sector. What I have

learned from them is they do not have a good chance for young people for

generations” (Youth Leader and CSO representative, Karen State, 28/3 - 2020)

Another was asked if any programs exist to support youth leaders, she replied that:

“There is no youth ministry, there is no youth department - only a small group of

people working in the bigger ministry for working for the young people and they

have now youth policy committee members. But these committees are purely

government led. Working for the government, with young people from civil

society” (Youth Activist & Advocate, Yangon, 26/4-2020)

However, regardless of their level of effectiveness, there is now formally a way for youths to

engage with politics and decision-making. One participant was concerned with funding for

youth organizations and involved himself:

“I am actually, committee member of township committee, currently, because I

would like to take more funding from the government to be taken to young people

and young youth led organizations” (Youth leader, Chin State, 25/3-2020)

Another was attempting to improve youth network opportunities through them, he was

hopeful for the prospects of their use:

37 | Page

“I am a part of it, then, with that team we are trying to strengthen the network

between these organizations and it's quite like, we are still on the process and then

sooner or later we believe there will be a strong network system among youths”

(Youth Leader & INGO representative, Chin State, 31/3-2020)

However, youth still feel as though they are restricted by age based hierarchical

exclusion as shown by several of the examples above. When viewed in this way, this research

supports the challenges found by the PSF report but opposes the efficiency of the solution.

Noteworthy though, is the type of the challenges that these examples point to. They are of a

socio-structural nature and despite them being ‘followed’ by these youths those same issues

they are trying to tackle remain - as made clear by the examples provided in this and other

sections of this research.

In summary, we might conclude that the youth policy does not, as of yet, address the

challenges faced by youth leaders found in this study efficiently since the challenges found are

the same prior and post youth policy implementation. The recommendations made in the

Paung Sei Facility (2017) report may indeed have contributed to Myanmar's acceptance of a

youth policy. But given that the challenges are similar to before, the youth policy does not

address them in their full extent. So similarly, to research question 2, we might conclude that

unless the priorities as to what needs to change drastically alters, only time will tell if the

youth policy will address the challenges felt by youth leaders.

Moving Forward, the same challenges remain, so the same challenges need to be

addressed. Since these are the challenges experienced by ‘up-and-coming’ youth leaders,

addressing them is a significant step towards facilitating youth leaders moving into roles of

power.

Both this research and the PSF report found that youth are frustrated with the position

they are in as a result of old social structures (Paung Sei Facility 2017, p. 24). Although this

research has found that in practice these restrictions did not prevent youth leaders in achieving

their goals. Yet that does not mean frustration cannot be felt over it. One participant for

instance expressed that:

38 | Page

“We are in a way to formulate our own political movement, political initiative,

political party - you know, our own narrative, our own structure and our own

decision. So, we are in the way, but it is likely to take time and as leader we will

achieve it because everything's changing and our generation demands for it”

(Youth Activist & Advocate, Yangon, 26/4-2020)

Another reiterated how:

“So I think it will be very different if young people take over power. And I think it

is really crucial as well, but youth are not future leaders - they are young leaders

right now. So they need to start changing. Not waiting for the chance anymore,

they need to start working. Right away” (Youth Leader & Youth Leadership

Proprietor, 15/4-2020)

This research and the PSF report found financial issues to be a restraining factor. The Paung

Sei Facility (2017) report found that essentially a brain-drain happens as youth face the

opportunity to continue volunteer work or move to a more prosperous field. This research

similarly found that a lot of youth leaders feel that they do not have the financial capacity to

take the next step towards their dream:

“I need financial support. I can only get financial support if I have the business. If

I participate in the political party then I cannot work in an NGO or the local CSOs

and I cannot work in the government office, so I have to run my own business”

(Youth Leader, Yangon, 20/4-2020)

Lastly, the PSF report and this research both found that organization of large, ethnically

diverse organizations was hindering efficient youth participation as well making progress in

conflict areas. One participant expressed how:

“My area is the area between ethnic armed organization and government area.

This was a battle area before. So it will be hard, since the peace process is gonna

39 | Page

[sic] affect a lot to me and what I am doing” (Youth Leader & Youth Leadership

Proprietor, 15/4-2020)

And about organization how:

“We are quite mixed. So, it is quite difficult to represent the whole youth in the

town. And it is quite difficult to organize, there are lots of small organizations,

youth organizations, which was founded and organized by their friend or interest

group” (Youth Leader & INGO representative, Chin State, 31/3-2020)

Where the Paung Sei Facility (2017) report found that ‘step one’ towards addressing the

challenges faced by youth leaders is socio-structural transformation of attitudes. This research

finds that for youth leaders moving into roles of power improvements-to-be-made, such as

policy changes or implementations of new programs, should target the non-social challenges

faced by youth leaders as this would yield more direct results. Though the Paung Sei Facility

report also made the conclusion that such effort should be prioritized at a later stage, the

conclusion of this research is to shift focus to issues with more potential for effective change

immediately. This is given that research question 2 and the discussion above determined that

social structures such as the hierarchy of age, little support from civilians or ‘society’ or poor

views of politicians did not, in fact stop progress being made. As one participant said:

“Because during the previous decades many youths didn’t have the voice, didn’t

raise their voice - because, they were not meant to raise their voice because of the

system. But we are turning into the democracy and we know that we have our

own voice, so we are trying to raise the voice. Maybe they still hang on to the old

system” (Youth Leader & INGO representative, Chin State, 31/3-2020)

Therefore, changes to ‘non-socio-structural’ challenges should be prioritized. Creating more

financial possibilities for youth leaders; stopping legal harassment; increasing conflict

reducing measures around youth leaders; assisting youth leaders in organizing; increasing

language capacities and; providing mental support are all areas that could be addressed more

efficiently since to do so does not require shifting the mindset of an entire generation.

40 | Page

Another conclusion to be made is that since future leaders are by nature untested in

their roles - strengthening their capabilities at an early stage is preferable. Political

Socialization teaches us the importance of youth organizations in creating democracy prone

citizens and creating a space where youth can test themselves (Flanagan 2004). ‘Democracy

prone’ might be likened to ‘more in line with international norms’. This study confirms that

many youth organizations indeed provide such a space and work towards such a goal. As

such, especially given the issue of youth leaders untested roles and the low capacities of the

Myanmar government, we might conclude that successful facilitation should not just

incorporate youth leaders, but also the organizations they run.

In short, future policy should target ‘factual’ items - and let the increasingly visible

and widespread international norms advocated by many youths change the social structures of

old. Restructuring change promises actual long-lasting change, and since we have previously

determined it is underway - it needs time to run its course. Addressing lacking financial

opportunities or stopping legal harassment of future leaders does not.

To summarize, these conclusions are meant to address the challenges faced by youth

leaders today, though some of these challenges change with the times and do not require

external input at this stage. Facilitation of youth leaders requires setting the stage for them and

enabling them to step forward. Changes of a more ‘factual’ nature would provide the

prerequisite and essential stepping stones for youth leaders to drive change.

41 | Page

6.0 Conclusion

In conclusion; Despite the existence of a national youth policy in Myanmar - this research

reaffirms the challenges found in the Paung Sei Facility (2017) report. Specifically, these are

echoing social structures of the past including frustration over youths' position as supposed

‘non-legitimate’ decision-making actors; financially restraining factors; organization within

ethnically diverse institutions; hindrances to youth participation due to conflict and;

education and youth capacity barriers. As previously mentioned, it is not possible to freeze a

social context, and it is therefore not possible to replicate a study such as this. However, the

similarities of findings in these regards speaks to their legitimacy.

Nevertheless, this research has found that thought the recommendations made in the

Paung Sei Facility (2017) report may have contributed to the acceptance of the national youth

policy, they have not yet yielded results beyond its acceptance and the implementations of

youth committees in its wake - as made evident by the constraining factors and challenges

experienced by youth leaders after its implementation stage has begun. As such, this research

concludes that the national youth policy is designed to address these challenges, but that it is

yet to do so.

Furthermore, this study adds depth to the debate by adding a new analytical

framework. If one of the primary issues identified by both this study and the Paung Sei

Facility (2017) report that youth leaders feel is restricting them - the hierarchy of age- is

viewed through this framework, we might conclude that it is in fact not stopping progress

towards internationally recognized norms and standards. As such, generational change in

Myanmar is restructuring and restructuring change promises lasting impact on institutions,

which includes social structures such as this hierarchy of age.

Given this, the final conclusion of this study is that the current focus on changing the

views and behaviours, the mindsets and attitudes of those opposing change should shift

towards addressing more ‘factual’ issues that can be dealt with immediately, such as financial

issues or legal harassment. This is due to the fact that mindsets are expected to change with

time, given restructuring change and the inevitability of that change. Doing so would

facilitate youth leaders’ transition into power and would allow youth to take the next step

towards the future they seek.

42 | Page

Bibliography

Reference List All European Academies (2017) The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. Revised Edition. ALLEA, Academy of Sciences and Humanities. Jaegerstr, Berlin, Germany [Online] Available at: https://www.allea.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/ALLEA-European-Code-of-Conduct-for-Research-Integrity-2017.pdf [Last Accessed 14/3/2020]

Bryman, Alan (2016) Social Research Methods. 5th ed. Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP, United Kingdom. Oxford University Press.

Delli Carpini, Michael, X (1989) Age and History: Generations and Sociopolitical Change. In R. S. Sigel’s (Ed.), Political learning in adulthood: A sourcebook of theory and research, Pp. 11-55. University of Chicago Press [Online] Available at: https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1011&=&context=asc_papers&=&sei-redir=1&referer=https%253A%252F%252Fscholar.google.com%252Fscholar%253Fhl%253Den%2526as_sdt%253D0%25252C5%2526q%253Dpeaceful%252Btransfer%252Bof%252Bpower%252Bover%252Bgenerations%2526btnG%253D#search=%22peaceful%20transfer%20power%20over%20generations%22 [Last Accessed: 21/2/2020] Diuk, Nadia, M (2012) The Next generation in Russia, Ukraine and Azerbaijan: Youth, Politics, Identity and Change. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. 4501 Forbes Boulevard, Suite 200, Lanham, Maryland, 20706. [Online] Available at: https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.proxy.lnu.se/lib/linne-ebooks/reader.action?docID=911846 [Last Accessed: 21/2/2020] Eliseo F. Huesca Jr. (2019) On “Youth, Peace, and Security” in Mindanao, Philippines. Peace Review A Journal of Social Justice. Vol. 31. Nr. 1. Pp. 57-65. June 2019 [Online] Available at: https://www-tandfonline-com.proxy.lnu.se/doi/pdf/10.1080/10402659.2019.1613597?needAccess=true& [Last Accessed: 19/5/2020]

Flanagan, Constance, A (2004) Volunteerism, Leadership, Political Socialization and Civic Engagement. In Lerner, R, M., Steinberg, L (2: nd Ed) Handbook of Adolescent Psychology, Pp. 721-746. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Hoboken, New Jersey [Online] Available at: https://dl.uswr.ac.ir/bitstream/Hannan/132211/1/2004%20-%20Handbook%20of%20adolescent%20psychology.pdf#page=736 [Last Accessed: 21/2/2020] Grizelj, Irena (2017) The Youth Space of Dialogue and Mediation in Myanmar. Berghof Foundation Operations GmbH. October 2017 [Online] Available at: https://www.berghof-foundation.org/fileadmin/redaktion/Publications/Other_Resources/YouthSpaceofDialogueMediation__Myanmar.pdf [Last Accessed: 24/2/2020] Grizelj, Irena (2018A) Engaging the Next Generation: A Field Perspective of Youth Inclusion in Myanmar’s Peace Negotiations. International Negotiation, Vol. 24, Pp. 164-188 [Online] Available at: https://brill-com.proxy.lnu.se/view/journals/iner/24/1/article-p164_8.xml [Last Accessed 21/2/2020] Grizelj, Irena (2018B) Protecting Needs and Capacities of Youth: A Preliminary Report Exploring Youth Protection in Myanmar. Paung Sei Facility [Online] Available at: https://www.nonviolentpeaceforce.org/images/publications/NP---YPS-Report-15Aug2018.pdf [Last Accessed: 21/2/2020] Grizelj, Irena, Altiok, Ali (2019) We Are Here: An integrated approach to youth inclusive peace processes. [Online] Available at: https://www.un.org/youthenvoy/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Global-Policy-Paper-Youth-Participation-in-Peace-Processes.pdf [Last Accessed 21/2/2020]’ Hava R, Gordon. Taft, K, Jessica (2011) Rethinking Youth Political Socialization: Teenage Activists Talk Back. Youth & Society, Vol. 43, N0. 4. Pp. 1499–1527. Sage Publications [Online] Available at: https://journals-sagepub-com.proxy.lnu.se/doi/pdf/10.1177/0044118X10386087 [Last Accessed: 5/5/2020]

Ministry of Information (2018) Myanmar Youth Policy released. The Republic of the Union of Myanmar. [Online] Available at: https://www.moi.gov.mm/moi:eng/?q=news/14/11/2018/id-12475 [Last Accessed: 18/5/2020]

43 | Page

Paung Sei Facility (2017) Youth and Everyday Peace in Myanmar: Fostering the Untapped Potential of Myanmar’s Youth. Paung Sei Facility [Online] Available at: http://www.paungsiefacility.org/uploads/3/0/1/8/30181835/youth_paper_english.pdf [Last Accessed 21/2/2020] Prasse-Freeman, Elliott (2012) Power, Civil Society, and an Inchoate Politics of the Daily in Burma/Myanmar. The Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 71, No. 2. Pp. 371-397. May 2012 [Online] Available at: https://www-jstor-org.proxy.lnu.se/stable/pdf/23263426.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3A5abbb274ec6857c8af11826a9245f056 [Last Accessed: 21/2/2020] Salem-Gervais, Nicholas, Raynaud, Mael (2020) Teaching Ethnic Minority Languages in Government Schools and the Developing of a Local Curriculum: Elements of Decentralization in Language-in-Education Policy. Urbaniz, Policy Institute for Urban and Regional Planning. Yangon, Myanmar. Su Mon Thazin Aung, Arnold, Matthew (2018) MANAGING CHANGE: Executive Policymaking in Myanmar. The Asia Foundation. May 2018 [Online] Available at: https://asiafoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Managing-Change-Executive-Policymaking-in-Myanmar_17-May-2018.pdf [Last Accessed: 13/3/2020] The Asia Foundation (2017) The Contested Areas of Myanmar: Subnational Conflict, Aid, and Development. The Asia Foundation [Online] Available at: https://asiafoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/ContestedAreasMyanmarReport.pdf [Last Accessed: 21/2/2020] UNDESA (2020) TARGETS. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs [Online] Available at: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdg16 [Last Accessed 18/5/220] United Nations (2015) Resolution 2250 (2015). United Nations [Online] Available at: http://unoy.org/wp-content/uploads/SCR-2250.pdf [Last Accessed: 21/2/2020] Vetenskapsrådet (ND) Forskningsetiska principer inom humanistisk-samhällsvetenskaplig forskning. Vetenskapsrådet [Online] Available at: http://www.codex.vr.se/texts/HSFR.pdf [Last Accessed 14/3/2020]

Warren, Ron, Wicks, Robert, H (2011) POLITICAL SOCIALIZATION: MODELING TEEN POLITICAL AND CIVIC ENGAGEMENT. J&MC Quarterly, Vol. 88, No. 1. Pp. 156-175. Spring 2011 [Online] Available at: https://journals-sagepub-com.proxy.lnu.se/doi/pdf/10.1177/107769901108800109 [Last Accessed: 5/5/2020]

World Population View (2020) Myanmar Population Pyramid 2020. [Online] Available at: https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/myanmar-population/ [Last Accessed: 18/5/2020

Key Informant Interviews List

Interview 1: Youth leader, Chin State, 25/3-2020 Interview 2: Youth Leader & CSO representative, Karen State, 28/3 - 2020 Interview 3: Youth Leader & INGO representative, Chin State, 31/3-2020 Interview 4: Youth leader & Social Enterprise Entrepreneur, 5/4-2020 Interview 5: Youth Leader & Youth Development Worker, Chin State, 6/4-2020 Interview 6: Youth Leader & Youth Leadership Proprietor, 15/4-2020 Interview 7: Myanmar Policy Maker & Peacebuilder, 16/4-2020 Interview 8: Youth Leader, Yangon, 20/4-2020 Recording 1(9): Youth Activist & Advocate, Yangon, 26/4-2020* *Recording 1(9) was sent to the author as an audio file of an individual who answered the questions posed in the interview guide and was not per say an interview conducted by the author.

44 | Page

Unpublished Sources Union of Myanmar (ND) Myanmar Youth Policy. (Unofficial Translation). The Republic of the Union of Myanmar.

45 | Page

Annexe I: Interview Guide

Interview Guidelines

This interview guide was based on guidelines from the Harvard Department of Sociology’s guide to a successful interview. Available at: https://sociology.fas.harvard.edu/files/sociology/files/interview_strategies.pdf As well as ‘Forskningsetiska Principer’ by Vetenskapsrådet. Available in Swedish at: http://www.codex.vr.se/texts/HSFR.pdf Ensure that the individual accepts being part of the interview or otherwise ensures consent to participation. Inform the individual that all available measures to ensure anonymity will be taken. No information will relate the individual to his or her answers. Inform the individual about what the information gathered will be used for and the purpose of this interview. I.e Bachelor's Thesis, University Studies. I would like to discuss three different themes - those are: The future; The Government and; Different generations in Myanmar. And, inform the participant that they may at any point terminate the interview or skip questions. Ask whether recording the interview is OK.

Questions

[ . . . ] = Change of topic ❘ Bold = Key question ❘ ( ) = Answer dependant or alternative question

● Tell me a bit about yourself - what do you do?

○ Tell me a little about your organisation

● Tell me about your future - what does it look like, if you could decide? ○ What does the process of achieving that look like, do you think? ○ How likely do you think it is to achieve that? ○ Do you know anyone who has built a future similar to that?

■ (How did they do it?)

● What are the biggest problems you face when trying to reach that future? ○ What do you do to tackle them?

● What sort of help to reach that future is given to you?

○ Are there organizations or initiatives that help you reach that future?

● What sort of help, if any, do you need to reach that future?

● (Tell me about who helps you prepare the most for the future) ○ (Who are they?)

46 | Page

■ (What do they do?) ○ (Why do they help you with this, do you think?)

[ . . . ]

● In what way, if any, does the government help you reach your future goals?

● Does any sort of government programs or policies exist to assist you in reaching your

future goals? ○ (Could there be any such programs?)

● Is there anything else the government can do to help you reach your future goals?

○ Do you think the government knows that?

[ . . . ]

● What is the relation between the younger and the older generation like?

● What does the younger generation have that the older does not?

● What is the role of the older generation today?

○ And the younger?

● How can the older generation help you reach your future goals?

● What will be different when the younger generations take over power in Myanmar? ○ What's the biggest change you would like to see happen? ○ Do you think that will happen?

[ . . . ]

● If you could tell the people who really need to hear what you have to say one thing, what

would it be?

● Is there anything else you would like to add?

47 | Page