Home >> South Asia >> Thailand & Myanmar

     Email   Print 

Burmese General Elections – Another Sham?

Saberi Roy - 7/10/2010

Aung San Suu Kyi’s trial for allowing an American into her house during the period of detention was simply an excuse to prevent her and her party from participating in the forthcoming elections in Burma. The Burmese government seems to be considerably determined not to allow Suu Kyi to participate in the elections as her victory is almost certain if she is given a chance to stand against the junta. The junta wants a fabricated election victory and wants to prove it to the world and to all democracy activists that they have legitimate claims to rule Burma. The new road map to democracy as proposed by Burma’s State Peace and Development Council is still an unclear path with the Burmese junta stepping up censorship and members of political parties are not even allowed to wave flags or try to garner support as their campaigning strategy for the forthcoming elections. It is evident that the junta now expects to rule the country within a democratic framework so that there is no further international opposition.

The essence of democracy is freedom and fairness and real mandate of the people whereas the Burmese elections seems to be about fabricated and limited democracy and like Aung San Suu Kyi’s trial seems to be another sham political agenda with the military government staging elections to promise some sort of ‘democratization of the military rule’. Democracy, even if it is a sham obviously has a better political prospect than any defiant military rule although a rigged and manipulated election as the Burmese elections are fated to be could trigger a different level of debate based on ethics of political rule rather along with the human rights issues that Burma is known for.

There are advantages of a democratic rule and for the junta it would mean more political legitimacy and for social activists it should mean increased participation in Burma’s social and political life. Yet the disadvantages for the junta would be that if elections are manipulated or if the junta is incapable of changing its ways of restricting freedom and activism of any sort, this would go against the spirit of democracy and will trigger ethical debates and more resentment against the junta worldwide. A political legitimacy of democratic military rule could mean that Burma would again be pushed back from any social progress. Increased open political participation of all parties is absolutely necessary with proper documentation of the entire election process and close monitoring of the elections by global media and human rights organizations. It is also true that the restrictions already imposed on Aung San Suu Kyi and other politicians of opposing parties highlight the fact that the military government already expects to continue similar impositions and dictatorial rules under the garb of democracy. The international community will have to take note of Burma’s forthcoming general elections and use strict monitoring and analysis of the military’s tactics before it is too late.

It is a different issue altogether that there is no definite agenda for the elections and the international community will have to pressurize the junta for a definite agenda and a schedule. However it is also true when the elections are over before the end of the year after possible blatant manipulation or rigging, it would be too late to cry foul and it is absolutely necessary that Amnesty and other Human rights organizations begin monitoring the situation and possible plans of the military that could continue to keep them in power. Any force, subtle or direct used by the Burmese junta will have to be identified by the international community and more international reporters will have to be at the scene and human rights activists will have to make sure that there is a genuine democratic free and fair election and that there is no pressure on the people to vote for specific candidates. Of course the word genuine has never figured in the Burmese junta’s actions towards the people of Burma and it is expected that the Burmese people will take wise decisions and vote for true democracy and help in overthrowing the military rule. Yet such a scenario is unlikely with reports of severe restrictions imposed on political parties and the polls are likely to be most unfair. Although some research analysts have suggested that despite the possible manipulation, this could mark the beginning of a slow democratic change in the country, there is nothing as bad as a military rule disguised as a democracy.

It has to be noted that Suu Kyi’s party the National League for Democracy won a landslide victory in the last general elections in 1990 and this was never acknowledged by the Burmese military. Suu Kyi’s party, the National League for Democracy (NLD) has set many conditions before they could participate in the 2010 polls and they have demanded release of political prisoners including release of Aung San Suu Kyi, changes to the constitution, reduction of the army's influence and greater international supervision and monitoring for free and fair polls. All these demands will have to be met by the Burmese military if they really want to prove to the world that they are serious about a true and genuine democracy. There is no democracy possible without release of political prisoners and it is absolutely necessary that there is continuous international supervision of the electoral process, from the stages of campaigning to the stages of vote counting and final formation of a democratic government.

The international community will have to act now before it is too late and along with putting pressure on the military for a definite election schedule, Amnesty International, the United Nations and other global human rights monitoring institutes and watchdogs will have to become more active in Burma. International organizations will have to ensure that the upcoming elections in Burma are genuine and would bring in true democracy and cater to the interests of the Burmese people rather than becoming a tool for protecting the interests of the military.