Freedom  of expression is a fundamental foundation of democracy and a powerful tool against inequality and injustice. Occasionally, democracies face limitations from authorities to further their own interests, and occasionally from the public when they oppose certain views. Freedom of expression has a wide range of topics, and one of the most effective strategies for countering governmental or societal persecution is political satire – the use of humor and exaggeration to criticize or ridicule aspects of government and public affairs. Since ancient times, artists, journalists, activists, opposition politicians, and others have used satire to challenge authority and social norms, undermine the government, and push for reforms. However, the right to satire fades when the majority no longer tolerates such speech, or when the government restricts it.

The tension between satire and public perception was evident in a controversy involving Myanmar social influencer Phyu Phyu Htwe. In the incident, Phyu Phyu Htwe played the main character in an advertisement for Castor Oil’s “HaoSu Balm.” In the video, Phyu Phyu, wearing a white dress and flowers on her head, repeatedly uses the word “Mother HaoSu,” which many on social media argued was a targeted insult against Daw Aung San Suu Kyi (DASSK). Phyu Phyu also used the gambling number 79, which many people again believed represented Daw Aung San Suu Kyi’s age. The incident occurred while the international community called for the release of DASSK. Phyu Phyu Htwe was subjected to the public boycott on the accusation that she knowingly satirized a beloved figure at a crucial moment in Myanmar’s struggle for democracy, and an unverified and anonymous group threatened to kill her. Finally, she removed her advertisement video post from her Facebook, even though she and her director explained that it was unintentional. Her controversial video combines commercial and political speech in the form of satire that does not exactly promote violence, but the reaction against it reflects a deeper issue in society’s approach to free speech, because many coercively boycotted her for having controversial content rather than critically engaging with the facts of the video.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall famously summarised Voltaire’s beliefs in The Friends of Voltaire (1906): “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” This highlights the idea that true freedom of expression includes tolerating views with which one may strongly disagree. However, the public response to Phyu Phyu Htwe’s ad demonstrated that while many support political satire when it targets authoritarian regimes, they react negatively when it challenges their admired figures. This raises a critical question: Is freedom of expression truly valued, or is it respected only when it aligns with popular opinion?

Since the 2021 coup, there have been numerous such cases of backlash against perceived political opinions in Myanmar. When many artists and social influencers did not openly express their disapproval of the coup or even outright supported it, they were boycotted on social media. At that moment, the public feared a return to the pre-2010 dark ages of military rule and therefore tried to pressure public figures to use their voices to oppose the coup. In response, the military regime has used section 505 of the Penal Code and other criminal laws to punish public figures who spoke out against the coup. In contrast, the public uses social punishments, such as boycotts, for anyone who seems to back the coup or is silent on the matter. This dynamic has created a troubling paradox: the choice between legal protection and social pressure for any public figure who remains quiet about the coup. But sometimes it goes beyond countering opposing ideas from both sides. The military’s response to political satire against them is to resort to unlawful arrests and violence to crush dissent, while the democratic movement’s response to political satire against their interests is a form of social coercion rather than respect for different political beliefs, as seen in the case of Phyu Phyu Htwe. In return, social media has a dual impact on this struggle; on the one hand, it serves as an essential tool for opposing the coup, and on the other, in controversial cases, the public tends to react negatively rather than engage critically. It is evident that such a culture of suppressing dissent weakens the very democratic ideals when looking at history, such as a crackdown on the Tiananmen Square Protests (1989), the passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts (1798) in the United States, and the imposition of the 2020 Hong Kong national security law. Democracy is not just about opposing dictatorship but also fostering a culture where different opinions can coexist without fear of persecution.

The struggle between power and free expression does not just happen in Myanmar; even in consolidated democracies, leaders have historically sought to suppress criticism. For example, the great founders of the United States, such as John Adams and George Washington, could not tolerate criticism and, respectively, passed the Sedition Act and led troops to suppress tax protestors. However, Benjamin Franklin Bache, editor of the Aurora, challenged those leaders in his satirical ways. Likewise, during the French Revolution, political satire was a significant influence in spreading anti-monarchical sentiment, particularly against King Louis XVI and Queen Marie Antoinette. Unlike in Europe, where satire is often direct, Asian societies tend to use more subtle approaches. In South Korea, Cho Se-hui wrote the novel The Dwart and used surrealism to critique inequality under Park Chung-hee’s regime. In the Thai novel The Judgment by Chart Korbjitti, it indirectly criticizes authoritarian rule by depicting a darkly satirical tale of how misinterpretations can lead to dire consequences. During India’s Emergency (1975 – 1977), satire revitalized the political dissents through various forms. Cartoonists such as Abu Abraham and R.K. Laxman used metaphors to avoid direct attacks against the state. These global examples illustrate that satire – whether overt or subtle – has long been a resilient tool for confronting authority and inspiring reform.

Just as satire has played a crucial role in challenging authority in other parts of the world, Myanmar’s history demonstrates that satire has been an integral part of Myanmar’s political and social landscape. Since the colonial era, satire has been immersed in the environment of Burmese intellectuals, artists, and activists, challenging authority and advocating for change. Thakin Kodaw Hmaing, the great Burmese artist, essayist, and political pioneer, used satirical poetry and essays to inspire the anti-colonial movement in Myanmar. His essay “On Adultery,” published under the pen name “Mr. Maung Hmaing,” mocked the affectation common among young Burmese Anglophiles, highlighting the cultural tensions between traditional Burmese values and colonial influences. In the post-independence era, famous cartoonists U Ba Gale and U Ba Gyan exerted a strong influence on satire in Myanmar. Their cartoons critique political figures on both sides, including Prime Minister U Nu and insurgent leaders like Than Tun, demonstrating the importance of satire in political speech.

When it comes to military regimes, Burmese writers and cartoonists never failed to criticize the government in satirical ways. In his poem “Bartway Phyit Kone Kya Pi Lae (ဘာတွေ ဖြစ်ကုန် ကြပြီလည်း)”,  Sayar Min Lu vividly portrayed the nature of dictatorship. Moreover, Sayar Maung Thaw Ka, aka Ba Thaw, in his collection of satirical poems named “ Yamakar Luolin (ယမကာလုလင်)”, seemed to criticize the corruptions of military government from the perspective of an alcoholic. Even in the Letter From Burma, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi praised Sayar Maung Thaw Ka’s irrepressible sense of humor. When told that a fellow writer believed in ghosts, Maung Thaw Ka riposted that he believed in anything — even the Burmese Socialist Program Party. Cartoonist Harn Lay, despite being in hiding from the military government in a small village, used his political cartoons to fight against the military government. These examples demonstrate how, even under severe censorship and repression, Burmese satirists have used their craft to challenge power and keep the spirit of dissent alive.

Beyond literature and cartoons, satirical folk songs and traditional Burmese theatre (Anyeint) were also used to mock the government in subtle ways. Than Gyut, a performance frequently staged during the Myanmar Thingyan Festival, was a popular way of channeling public opinion regarding political issues. Those Than Gyut gently signaled governmental officials to fix their mistake in satirical ways, but in 1974, it was banned after the government claimed it undermined national security. Similarly, in the Anyeint setting during that same period, a famous comedian named “Zarganar” used satire to mock the regime’s failures and injustices, and in his “Beggars’ Conference,” a group of comedians ridiculed the puppet-like Parliament controlled by Ne Win, exposing the illusion of democracy under military rule. Later, with the gradual lifting of censorship during the democratic transition (2011-2020), writers, musicians, satirical poets, cartoonists, and comedians continued their duty of highlighting corruption and governmental failures.

After the 2021 coup, both artists from mainstream platforms and the broader public have been using satirical material to challenge the failed coup. Young protestors use memes and humor to combat police aggression. With the advancement of technology, one of the latest generations of the Anyeint, “Har Ngar Kaung,” opened a YouTube channel to mock the SAC and its puppets. During Thingyan, members of the peacock generation who were jailed for mocking the military before the coup boosted morale with traditional “Thangyat” performances featuring poetry, comedy, and satirical songs against the junta. The persistence of satire throughout Myanmar’s history demonstrates how the country embraces both the light and dark sides of satire as a tool for political communication in the face of governmental repression.

Even though satire has been a tool for challenging dictatorship, its acceptance among the Burmese public often depends on whom it targets. When confronted with dissent they disliked, viewers used social pressure to punish this unpopular speech, as in Phyu Phyu Htwe’s case. In this instance, whether she intended to mock Daw Aung San Suu Kyi or not, she was still exercising freedom of expression as long as she was not directly promoting violent acts. It is true that, whether she intended to mock DASSK or not, the advertisement negatively portrayed both DASSK and (indirectly) Myanmar’s current revolution, as the video depicted Phyu Phyu Htaw as not caring about the revolution because the democratic forces were losing. But there is also an advantage to such speech, even for supporters of DASSK and the democratic revolution. When Phyu Phyu Htwe’s commercial advertisement was released, it drew public attention to the importance and struggles of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and the democracy movement, revitalizing political discussion among the public. It sparked many political discussions that might have otherwise been ignored. Therefore, satire, even if it is insulting to someone of greatness, must be tolerated for the benefit of public discussion.

Moreover, Article (19) of the UDHR and ICCPR clearly states that everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference and the right to seek, receive, and impart information of all kinds, through any media of their choice. However, in post-coup Myanmar, anyone who challenges mainstream ideas could face imprisonment by the junta on the one hand or social punishment from the democratic movement on the other. This environment leaves little space for genuine dissent, effectively stifling the free exchange of ideas.

Throughout history, satire has proven to be one of the most powerful tools for challenging authority, exposing corruption, and pushing for societal change. However, the paradox of free expression in Myanmar reveals a troubling reality: popular satire consists of criticism directed at oppressive figures, but the same technique is condemned when it challenges widely admired leaders or beliefs. However, democratic culture is not just about opposing dictatorship, but it is also about fostering a culture where diverse opinions, even uncomfortable ones, can coexist without fear of punishment. If the people of Myanmar want to succeed in the democratic movement, they must acknowledge that freedom of expression cannot be conditional. In the end, the lesson from history is clear: satire, no matter how controversial, must be permitted in the interest of public discourse. According to Daw Aung San Suu Kyi’s book, Freedom from Fear, a truly free society allows individuals to speak without fear and encourages critical engagement rather than suppression.

Wayne (pseudonym) is a socio–legal researcher focusing on constitutional areas such as fundamental rights, the rule of law, and constitutional designs.