Burma

This is kind of an abstract post but I wanted to bring this question about the legitimacy of the state in terms of style of sovereign or disciplinary forms of rule into a more contemporary context. Foucault seems to keep juxtaposing between two hundred years of history as if everything had been turned on its head and no vestiages of the old forms of rule still existed when in fact throughout much of the world, the rule of the sovereign remains claiming authority in the divine. Foucault seems to suggest that these two forms of rule, while inherently different, seem to not change the amount of freedom we have but the cooperation of this freedom with the state. What then would be an analysis of the type of repression the people face in Burma verses the repression we face here?