A senior research fellow at Oxford University's St Antony's College, Matthew Walton has been at the forefront of academic writing on contemporary Myanmar nationalism, Burmese Buddhist identity, and the Buddhist-Muslim conflict for years. Buddhism, Politics and Political Thought in Myanmar is a stimulating and highly readable book for scholars and students alike. It is based on Walton's more explicitly titled 2012 PhD thesis, “Politics in the Moral Universe: Burmese Buddhist Political Thought.” It emphasizes the concept of the “moral universe,” which frames political thinking in Myanmar. To comprehend contemporary Burmese politics, says Walton, requires “understanding a set of Buddhist concepts and their various interpretations that together make up a view of the universe as a place that functions according to a particular moral-causal logic” (p. 198). While political action is commonly viewed in Myanmar as a “quintessential moral practice,” it must negotiate the latent tension between the “skepticism about the efficacy of mass political participation” and the “belief that the moral conduct of groups and individuals can have tangible effects in the world” (p. 198). Political actors have therefore been challenged to prove their political worthiness throughout the twentieth century, and creative interpretations of kan (Burmese for karma) as a call for “right action” based on “effort” (wiriya) and “wisdom” (nyan) had to confront Buddhist perceptions of human beings as “ordinary worldlings enslaved to desire” (pp. 52, 72).

Walton's main investigative concern is the link between “the logical framework of the moral universe” and contemporary efforts to cast “democratic practice as an inherent part of Buddhist teachings” (p. 163). The present review will prioritize the three last chapters of the book (chapters 4–6), which provide the chief reward to readers who take an interest in the vicissitudes of Myanmar's democratization process.

Chapter 5 asks “What Is ‘Politics’ and What Constitutes ‘Participation’?” and starts with the prevalent Burmese view that politics are a necessary evil. However, there is an ample record of how, since the late colonial period, Burmese Buddhists explored opportunities for participation by creating social and religious organizations. In the early twentieth century, their activities covered a wide span between militating for the protection of the religion and increasingly agitating for popular representation (pp. 132–33). Balancing the arguments counter to political participation (moral failure, the divisiveness of party politics, ignorance of the masses, or lack of higher education) with the expanding repertoire of political engagement, Walton delineates a picture of ongoing change that stretches from British colonialism to the recent political transition. Chapter 5 underscores the ongoing relevance of Buddhist notions of moral rectitude, unity, and discipline whose validity extends beyond ideological differences and abrupt political changes. Walton's vibrant presentations based on personal interviews with monastic figures provide a captivating account. He explains how Burmese monks have navigated their engagement with politics under authoritarian regimes, applied their own various “political methods” (such as the denial of merit-making, “turning over the alms bowl” or metta, and “loving kindness” chanting) and reiterated justifications for their political engagement, negotiating legal and political constraints and their liminal position in the Buddhist society. By highlighting the role of social work (parahita) and individual moral practice as forms of political engagement, Walton makes a convincing case for the expanded public participation he observed after 2011.

In chapter 6, “Discipline, Rights, and Morality: ‘Democracy’ in Contemporary Myanmar,” Walton differentiates three conceptions of democracy by Burmese Buddhists that “most of the main political groupings in Myanmar [including the army, the NLD, the monkhood, and various ethnic groups] … have endorsed.” These are “disciplined democracy,” “rights-based democracy,” and what he calls “moral democracy.” The “disciplined democracy,” with its “devotion to unity above all else” (p. 172), is a concept “mostly commonly connected to the military” (p. 167), who had advocated for many years for a “culturally appropriate” (p. 170) democracy different from divisive Western politics and Burma's own conflictual parliamentary period in the 1950s. However, Walton makes clear that “the notion of disciplined politics (or the related notion of unity) is not foreign to the … democratic opposition or democratically inclined monks” (p. 168) and that the “emphasis on discipline and order as prerequisites for political participation, the need for a central power to maintain that order, and the insistence on unity … are consistent with the logic of the moral universe” (p. 168). The supporters of “rights-based democracy” who come closest to a liberal human rights discourse have essentially argued that “Buddha's teachings contain the essence of democracy” (p. 175). While this stance was closely associated with Aung San Suu Kyi and anti-junta monks, Walton points to the “many elements of the [military] regime's Road Map” corresponding to “widely accepted components of democracy” (p. 176) too. Finally, the category “moral democracy” catches a properly monastic understanding of democracy as “acting in accordance with taya” (p. 179) or dhamma, the Buddha's teaching interpreted as a way to balance both rights (such as freedom) and responsibilities (such as “rule-following”). Walton closes the chapter with an outline of Aung San Suu Kyi's “hybrid democratic thought” (p. 181), concluding that she “merges the freedom celebrated in the rights-based account of democracy with the moral discipline … anchored in the logic of the moral universe” (p. 185).

Walton's well-substantiated overview of Burmese-Buddhist ideas of democracy takes him to the question of whether discipline and Buddhist morality do foster or limit democracy. His discussion of related issues, such as the “problematic ambiguity of linking democracy” with Buddhist “truth” or the challenge of implementing “moral democracy” “in a religiously plural manner” (pp. 188–89), raises several of the challenges that burden Myanmar's current political life. While Walton notes a “surprising similarity in thinking about particular aspects” of democracy, he also emphasizes the lack of attention “paid to ideological contestation over different conception of democracy” (p. 190). Aung San Suu Kyi's contemporary speeches contain “virtually none of the Buddhist thinking that characterized her writings from the early 1990s” (p. 190) and under previous president Thein Sein's reform government, there was a “decided absence of religious rhetoric.” Elsewhere Walton has noted that “most monks avoid preaching about politics.”Footnote ¹ These observations contrast with the strident rhetoric of politico-religious activist groups like MaBaTha or 969 and lead Walton back to his earlier discussion of the purpose of politics. If democracy means freedom (potentially limited by moral restrictions), what does freedom mean?

The purpose of politics in Burma has alternated between calls for freedom and liberation and calls for order (chapter 4). The established order of the monarchy, with its understanding of freedom as an endeavor for worldly detachment, was followed by the colonial period, where the objective of politically active Burmese was political freedom. The hope for economic freedom then dominated the early postcolonial period, which was marked by Marxist interpretations and socialist depictions of a “worldly nirvana” (lawka neikban). The rhetoric of order under the military regime fostered calls for moral and political freedom, as voiced by the democratic opposition since the late 1980s. One wonders if, in the absence of ideological debates today, contemporary observers of the country may not find in Burmese thinking on the purpose of politics a better orientation to decrypt daily politics than in the tides of moral speech by political actors.

Walton introduces his work as a contribution to comparative political theory, presenting the “Theravada moral universe” as the “cognitive framework for the thinkers examined in this book” (pp. 20–21). Chapter 2, “Building Blocks of a Moral Universe,” offers well-crafted presentations of key Buddhist notions (including causality, impermanence, and the four noble truths) that form “the basic components of the modernist Buddhist worldview” (p. 36), while chapter 3. “On Human Nature and the Nature of Politics,” highlights different Burmese Buddhist interpretations of the nature of politics. Both chapters establish the nexus between the moral world and political thinking, but they are also meant as the “necessary groundwork … to engage in further cross-cultural comparative work” (p. 21).

There are several leads here for critical observations that can only be briefly sketched. Walton's focus is the progressive shift from politics as an “elite activity” towards a “gradual ‘democratization’ of the moral logic” (p. 94). Yet Matthew Moore recalls that “the clearly dominant view is that the canonical political theory of Buddhism supports monarchy,” raising the issue of how contemporary Buddhists have bridged or negotiated the gap between monarchic tradition and political modernity.Footnote ² The Burmese Buddhist world order until 1885 was buttressed by the cosmic presence of a king and the monarchic ideal of the dhammarāja (the law-abiding king). The persistence of monarchic elements in modern political thinking, such as the “Ten Duties of the King,” a prominent set of moral-cum-political principles underpinning the reform policies of the late Konbaung kings, warrants further study, notably because the “Ten” are quoted by democracy-minded actors (pp. 33, 159, 177, 179, 183).Footnote ³

Notions of awe-inspiring, mystical power sit uncomfortably with descriptions of secular democratizing politics, but the ingrained concept of charismatic, predestined leadership (minlaung) can hardly be ignored in Burmese political thought. Not only Aung San Suu Kyi has been described as a charismatic leader. Sitagu Sayadaw, the most widely quoted monk in Walton's study, has been described as the “modern prototype of a charismatic monk who has enhanced his spiritual worth by active social engagement.”Footnote ⁴ The political syntax of Walton's “moral universe” displays a suggestive harmony that also passes into silence conceptual fault-lines regarding the depiction of the ideal political leader in foundational texts like the Aggañña Sutta and the Cakkavatti Sutta. Hans-Bernd Zöllner has recently pointed out that the Mahasammata myth of the Aggañña Sutta, presented in modern days as “an indigenous basis for democracy” (p. 76) and a “Burmese heritage for the ideal of a social contract” (p. 79), does not provide space for a “democratic opposition” or alternating rule.Footnote ⁵

None of these observations chips away at the qualities and cautious conclusions of this pioneering volume, enhanced by an excellent historical summary in chapter 1, an impeccable glossary, and a well-arranged index. It is, indeed, to recommend Walton's timely publication with his own modest formulation, a “starting point for the future refinement of particular topics” (p. 21).