"Antagonism and mutual distrust between the Burmese armed forces (or Tatmadaw) and the civilian sphere have long characterized Myanmar’s post-independence politics. Since the 1950s, Tatmadaw publications DQG RI¿FLDO GLVFRXUVHV KDYH URXWLQHO\ DFFXVHG FLYLOLDQ SROLWLFLDQV DQG parliamentarians in particular, of having drawn the country from one crisis to another (Mya Win 1992; Min Maung Maung 1993). In its own words and propaganda works, the Tatmadaw likes to position itself as the sole cohesive, dedicated and disciplined state institution able to safeguard the unity of the nation, protect its integrity and bring about political stability (Selth 2002; Callahan 2000, 2009; Kyaw Yin Hlaing 2009; Maung Aung Myoe 2009; Nakanishi 2013). Across time and place, the contempt for disruptive and chaotic parliamentarian politics as well as the divisive essence of civilian affairs has long been underscored by civil-military scholarship as a legitimate incentive for the intervention of coup-prone or “praetorian” armies (Huntington 1957; Finer 1975; Nordlinger 1977)..."