Burma's Sham Elections

[asad71]

Burma’s 2015 Elections and the 2008 Constitution
October 30, 2015
Burma Briefing No. 41



With elections scheduled in Burma on 8 November, this briefing contains detailed analysis of what is likely to happen after election day, the process of the elections, and key election statistics.

Key points from the briefing include:

• Regardless of who wins the election, the military has control and/or influence over every level of government and will still have ultimate control over the country.
• An NLD government could be powerless to stop many human rights violations as they will not have control over the armed forces, police, or security services. As a result, attacks against ethnic groups, use of rape as a weapon of war, and the arrest and jailing of critics of the military, could continue under an NLD government.
• For the first time since independence, ethnic Rohingya are largely unable to vote and will not have an MP in Parliament.
• For the first time since independence, Parliament is unlikely to contain a single Muslim MP.
• At least 20% of the population of Burma, more than 10 million people, have been deliberately disenfranchised or are unable to vote for other reasons.
• The elections will not bring Burma closer to addressing key issues relating to ethnic aspirations and rights.
• Neither the NLD or USDP are likely to ensure ethnic Rohingya have the rights and protection they are entitled to under international law, and external pressure will be required whoever forms the next government.
• Even before a single vote was cast, the elections cannot be either free, fair, credible or inclusive.
• The 2008 Constitution is designed for the eventuality of an NLD government without it being a threat to military interests.
• The election results are likely to highlight growing ethnic and religious divides in Burma.
• The election may usher in a government which is chosen by the people and able to implement policies and laws which benefit many people, despite being hamstrung on many issues.
• The election is also a key moment in the transition to a new form of military control and may consolidate continuing military control over the country.
• Victims of ongoing human rights violations cannot wait for a decades-long slow transition to a genuine democracy.

Download this briefing

Related Posts

• Human Rights are called universal for a reason
• One Year On From Burma Signing Sexual Violence Declaration – No Steps Taken On Implementation
• Rohingya refugee crisis is a policy success for President Thein Sein
• British government defends Burma reforms: Burma Campaign UK responds
• Recent Reports on Human Rights Violations in Burma
• One Month On From Burma Signing Sexual Violence Declaration – No Steps Taken On Implementation
• Rape and Sexual Violence by the Burmese Army
• Trade, development, and the smokescreen of CSR

 

[asad71]

1.I have always maintained in this Forum that the Burmese of all description view the Muslims as the principal threat to their nation. Their definition of "Muslims" include Bengalis / Bangladeshis.
2. The military will never allow peace in Burma. Continuing insurgencies enable them to retain their enormous power and authority. The ruling Burman race support the military because in a democracy they will loose the pampering they get now.

 

[Stannis Baratheon]

We should take the Rohingyas and Rakhine.

 

[asad71]

Myanmar’s New Nationalist Party Surges into Election Race

Nay Zin Latt, former presidential advisor and founder of the NDP, speaks at a rally in the Mon State capital Moulmein on Oct. 12, 2015. (Photo: PHYO THIHA CHO/MYANMAR NOW)
By Phyo Thiha Cho
Myanmar Now
October 29, 2015
The National Development Party may only be a few months old, but it is already an electoral force to be reckoned with.
MOULMEIN, Mon State — With just weeks before Burma’s landmark elections, a fleet of cars covered with stickers of the National Development Party (NDP) carrying flag-waving party supporters and Buddhist monks crawled through the streets of Moulmein, Mon State’s capital.
The convoy was heading to the Strand Hotel on the banks of the Salween River. Most party faithful were wearing white T-shirts emblazoned with the NDP’s symbol—a golden dancing peacock—some of the shirts also bore the slogan “racial protection law has come into effect!”
The NDP only became an official political party in early July 2015, but the Buddhist nationalist party has surged into contention in Burmese politics, ranking fourth among political parties in terms of both funding and numbers of candidates fielded for the Nov.8 poll.
On the lawn of the Strand Hotel, some 60 monks were assembled, many from the Maha Myaing Monastery and Myazedi (Yekyaung) Monastery, believed to be the cradle of the radical Buddhist group Ma Ba Tha. Behind them gathered hundreds more people, listening intently to the speakers.
“Around the world, every country, its people and religions, focus on their own interest. So it is out of the question that we do not safeguard and protect our race and religion,” said Nay Zin Latt, former presidential adviser and founder of the party, to applause from the audience. He was clad in a traditional pale apricot Burmese ‘taikpone’ coat and a string of jasmine flowers round his neck.
Religious tensions are running high in Buddhist-majority Burma ahead of the election, largely stoked by Ma Ba Tha, which has emerged as a powerful force.
In late August, President Thein Sein signed onto the statute books the last of four controversial “Race and Religion Protection Laws” championed by radical Buddhists but decried by rights groups as aimed at discriminating against the country’s Muslim minority, as well as eroding the rights of women.
The NDP strongly supports the laws, but its leaders deny that they are stirring up animosity towards Burma’s Muslim minority for political gain.
Some 350 NDP candidates will contest 134 seats in the Lower House, 60 seats in the Upper House and 160 seats for state and regional parliaments, trailing only the ruling Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP), the main opposition National League for Democracy (NLD) of Aung San Suu Kyi, and the National Unity Party (NUP), formerly known as the Burma Socialist Programme Party (BSPP).
So how has the party managed to shake up the political landscape in such a short space of time? Paik Tin, a political columnist and head of policy for the NDP, said the party had the backing of many wealthy members.
In an interview at a wooden house in Moulmein with the NDP signboard hung outside, Paik Tin outlined the party’s platform, which appeared to be centered on “defending” Buddhism.
“We are insisting to protect race and religion because majority of our party members are Buddhists. The existing situation demands us to do so,” said Paik Tin, as party members around him used their mobile phones to record the interview and take photographs.
“As some said our country is the last stronghold of Theravada Buddhism, so we are responsible to take seriously the protection of our religion and nationality. But we reject the accusation that we are using religion for political influence.”
New Kid on the Block
The NDP was formed in the early part of 2015, by presidential adviser and prominent businessman Nay Zin Latt, who resigned from his post to found the new political movement.
According to the Union Election Commission, the NDP applied for the formation of a party in March, and for registration in early July. Aung Htwe, the party’s vice chairman, said it now has hundreds of thousands of members across the country.
The party says its platform is not only based on religious nationalism, it says it is seeking to grow national prosperity, improve education and healthcare and bring an end to armed conflicts in Burma. But its opponents say its populist message will not appeal to better educated voters.
Thaung Hla, chairman of the NUP in Moulmein, said his party has instructed its 31 candidates in Mon state not follow the NDP’s populist approach and to keep religion out of political campaigning.
“We do not accept mixing religion and politics. Religion should not be misused in politics,” he said.
Although the NDP has made no secret of its support for the new laws, in speeches, campaign slogans and banners, Aung Ko Ko, a Lower House candidate for the NDP, looked irritated when asked if his party was an extension of the radical Buddhist Ma Ba Tha movement.
“We are accused of conducting campaigns in collaboration with Ma Ba Tha to use religion for politics. It is not true. But we have common objectives,” the 40-year-old ethnic Mon said.
He said his party received spontaneous support from young people who form the volunteer groups that organize alms donations for monks in Moulmein.
But many among the monks’ order reject the NDP’s campaign tactics.
Religion and Politics
Ven Silacara, deputy chief Buddhist monk of Ramanya Nikaya, which has great influence on the Buddhists of Mon State, said while he supported the nationalistic laws, they should not be used in political campaigns.
The 70-year-old monk lectures to 800 monks and novices every day at a monastery in Moulmein.
“We appreciate the emergence of nationalistic law, but we will not take part in the campaigns of political parties,” he said.
Another prominent Mon monk, Venerable Okkansa, who was detained for more than 15 years in Rangoon’s notorious Insein prison for political activities, agreed: “All political parties are conducting campaigns. But they do not use religion for attracting votes.”
Mi Kon Chan, an NLD candidate from Paung Township, said some politicians were whipping up fear among Buddhist voters, particularly in rural areas, who had been told their religion would be under threat if the NLD wins the election, after the party objected to the new “race and religion” laws in the last parliament.
“I have experienced dirty campaigning,” said Mi Con Chan, a Buddhist woman, married to a Buddhist. “They said my husband is Kalar [Muslim] and I am not a Buddhist.”
- See more at: Rohingya Blogger: Myanmar’s New Nationalist Party Surges into Election Race

 

[tsinga]

We should take the Rohingyas and Rakhine.

And how do you propose to do that?
Your(BD) military strength is not sufficient to take and hold the Rakhine area.

 

[Stannis Baratheon]

Your(BD) military strength is not sufficient to take and hold the Rakhine area.

It is more than sufficient. We have a much better trained Military who have a much better understanding of military tactics. Also, we have the Rohingyas, we can use them for para-military forces.

 

[asad71]

Rohingya Blogger: Muslims with citizenship barred from Myanmar election, living in poverty

Muslims with citizenship barred from Myanmar election, living in poverty
By Jack Board
Channel NewsAsia
November 1, 2015

Sin Tat Mon village in Myanmar's Rakhine state.
Thousands of Kaman, ethnic Muslims who are citizens of Myanmar, remain displaced in Rakhine state, unable to return to their homes or have their say in the country's November elections.
SITTWE, Myanmar: On an isolated island, accessible only by boat from Sittwe on the Myanmar mainland live thousands of Myanmar citizens living in abject poverty and denied the right to vote in the upcoming general elections.
The reason: Their Muslim religion. In Sin Tat Mon Village, about 7,000 Rohingyas, known as Bengalis by the Myanmar government, live alongside a small refugee camp that houses more than 2,000 Kaman, Myanmar citizens who due to their faith were victims of deadly violence in 2012 and have yet to recover their former lives.



Kaman people are officially recognised by the Myanmar government as one of the seven ethnic groups in the country and hold strong historic and cultural connections to these lands. Their ancestry stretches back several centuries and they are widely considered indigenous.
They hold national identity cards, what should be a powerful symbol of citizenship in the country, yet they claim their rights have been slowly eroded in the aftermath of deadly riots in 2012.
A group of 4,000 people from the town of Kyauk Phyu fled in terror from the violence then, undertaking a two day boat journey to Sittwe, where they were refused access to port. They then settled on the island, living among the Rohingyas before a internally-displaced persons (IDP) camp was established months later.


Today, the camp, with the support of the state government and international NGOs, has vastly improved from its founding days. Wooden structures have replaced tents, women have areas for breastfeeding and chickens for eggs and food run freely through the muddy laneways.

Sin Tat Mon Village.
But this is far from home for the proud Kaman people, who cry out desperately for healthcare and a political voice to stand up for their community. Kyaw Hia is a community leader who once ran as an election candidate for the ruling Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP). Now he is in a fight with them to restore voting rights for the Kaman.
"In previous elections we could vote, since 1974 and even in 1990 and 2010," he said. "Other camps have voter lists but here there is none so we sent a letter to the president but we are still waiting to hear back."
In the meantime, the Kaman have no freedom of movement and are restricted to the displacement camps, as the Rohingyas are to their village.
Kyaw Hla said the community has "no hope" of any outcome soon. "We are expecting that after the election there will be a new government, so we are waiting to see."

Ohn Mar Saw's husband died last year and she said health care remains a major issue for displaced Kaman.
His sister, 49-year-old Ohn Mar Saw lost her husband in 2014 to illness and she has been left with her two children in the camp. Her eldest lives in Singapore, working in the shipping industry but she will not allow him to return to Rakhine.
"I have told him not to come back," she said. "At any time there could be riots. But we stay in touch using Viber."
"We are people of this country, I have a national identity card but I cannot go to Sittwe if I want," she said. "Children here need school and university. And people are dying here."
Health is a major concern for many residents, including Ohn Mar Saw, who works as an interpreter for Medecins Sans Frontieres when they visit the camp each week. She also helps with advocacy programmes to help maintain hygiene around the camp, which has limited drainage and sanitation.

Police with rifles monitor activity at the camp and prevent people leaving the island.
Ever present around the population are police officers who oversee everyone entering and leaving the area and maintain strict order. They witness all interviews and record what is said to visiting media.

Fishermen mend their nets in Sin Tat Mon village.
Around them, children play in the steady rain, many suffering from malnutrition and visible skin ailments. Men sit and tie fishing nets as the tide sweeps out; they will need to pay police to attempt a catch each day.
Along the shoreline, empty shells of two-storied buildings are unused, there is no-one to staff a clinic or a school should it be completed.


A makeshift mosque is a place of pride for many here; back in the home towns of Muslim communities, mosques have been destroyed and decommissioned to be used as housing for soldiers and police.
Returning back there is a distant prospect with a lack of security and fear of future reprisal major considerations for the Kaman even if the government was to lift travel restrictions.
"We are suffering because of this," said a resigned Kyaw Hia. "It is the fate of our people."

(Photos: Jack Board)
- See more at: Rohingya Blogger: Muslims with citizenship barred from Myanmar election, living in poverty

 

[asad71]

It is more than sufficient. We have a much better trained Military who have a much better understanding of military tactics. Also, we have the Rohingyas, we can use them for para-military forces.

We only need to provide them a corridor. The Mujahids are the nightmare of the Burmese. They can fight and liberate their land. Money and arms aren't any issue. Only a tolerance by BD which unfortunately has been subjugated to Delhi by SHW/BAL. But that phenomenon will change suddenly and dramatically Insha Allah.

America’s Myanmar Mistake


Photo courtesy of Andrew Mercer
By Rachel Wagley
The Fletcher Forum
November 5, 2015
If Rwanda was Bill Clinton’s greatest regret and Darfur was George W. Bush’s, Myanmar may well become President Barack Obama’s. U.S. Myanmar policy, occasionally praised as one of Obama and Hillary Clinton’s greatest foreign policy accomplishments, is flavored by willful blindness toward the government’s persecution of Rohingya Muslims.
Myanmar citizens will cast their ballots on November 8th in an election that excludes 800,000 Rohingya voters, dozens of Muslim candidates, and a host of other minorities. Even Nobel Peace Prize-winner Aung San Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy (NLD) party has refused to run Muslim candidates. After a summer-long media onslaught on the great promise of the country’s “free and fair elections,” the news is catching up: in Myanmar’s elections, people of certain ethnicities and religions are less equal than others.
The election is perhaps least fair for the stateless Rohingya. At the moment, 140,000 of them are wasting away in ghettos and internally displaced persons camps in Rakhine State. They have little hope of returning to their land and businesses, which have been effectively confiscated, and they are at the mercy of the country’s ruthless security forces.
In fact, reports from the Yale Law School’s International Human Rights Clinic, the International State Crime Initiative, and an Al Jazeera investigation have concluded that there is strong legal evidence for classifying persecution against Rohingya as state-sponsored genocide.
Lamentably, this classification may not matter—at least as far as the U.S. government is concerned. Rohingya are already widely considered victims of ethnic cleansing. By 2013, the human rights community had begun hinting at genocide, after leaked draft legislation and regional orders revealed that the Myanmar government and military were actively engaged in restricting the Rohingya’s most basic rights.
However, in Washington, few are willing to use the term “genocide.” They worry that, if they do, they will not be taken seriously, particularly since the U.S.-Myanmar relationship is considered such a success story.
Given the lack of concern the issue is receiving, it is not surprising that the U.S. government has done little to ease the Rohingya’s plight. Tolerance programs at the U.S. Embassy in Yangon, paltry amounts of humanitarian assistance to the Rohingya, and admonishments against religious discrimination are about all the U.S. has offered to the country, which has been rocked by an ethno-religious identity crisis since violence broke out in Rakhine State in mid-2012.
The Obama administration has avoided identifying the crisis as ethnic cleansing and has not acknowledged the government’s active role in perpetuating systematic persecution. The administration often frames the Rohingya situation as a “challenge” that has arisen from “hate speech” caused by the lifting of restrictions on freedom of expression and by the Race and Religion Protection Laws that undercut the government’s “efforts to promote tolerance, diversity, and national unity.”
But the government’s lifting of some restrictions on basic freedoms of speech and expression is hardly the cause of violence, be it “intercommunal” or state sponsored. The Rohingya cleansing is not a natural consequence of a transition to democracy, but a consequence of the government’s discriminatory policies and violence.
Ethno-religious violence has been a favorite direct and indirect tool of the military regime since the 1960s, and the current government remains adept at silencing “hate speech” on topics against its interests. The Myanmar government has led a sustained, targeted campaign against the Rohingya for decades including through the 1974 Emergency Immigration Act, the 1982 Citizenship Law, and particularly horrific episodes of violence since 1978. Given this history, it is utterly impossible—despite the Obama administration’s best efforts—to see the Myanmar government as an agent of tolerance, diversity, or national unity.
Outside of the Obama administration, some politicians have tried to hold the Myanmar government accountable for its abuses. A bipartisan group on Capitol Hill, including Senators Marco Rubio, Bob Menendez, Bob Corker, and Ben Cardin, has realized the culpability of the government, writing a bill to limit full U.S. engagement with a country at war with its minorities. In Myanmar, well-institutionalized violence and discrimination are rooted in a Buddhist-Burman nationalism that continues to rationalize state attacks on minority groups across the country. This is precisely why no number of tepid and toothless admonishments from a half-hearted U.S. will ever end the Rohingya’s torment.
More recently, in October 2015, U.S. Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes traveled to Myanmar to discuss “U.S. expectations” of the upcoming election. However, those “expectations” remain unclear—and so far they seem to be largely nonexistent. Already, the Myanmar government has disenfranchised the Rohingya, excluded Shan and Kachin townships from elections, blocked overseas advance voters, and refused to allow Aung San Suu Kyi to run for president.
Rather than clarifying that a Muslim-free election won’t be taken seriously by the leader of the free world, the Obama administration has through the International Foundation for Electoral Systems provided funds to Myanmar’s Union Election Commission— which banned Rohingya parliamentarians from running. Some Obama administration officials have even said that the U.S. will view the election as legitimate as long as the Myanmar people do.
That argument is disingenuous at best. It ignores the basic criteria for credible elections and the evidence that many people are already being excluded from voting. Moreover, it discounts the chorus of civil society voices speaking out for plurality and religious tolerance in Myanmar.
There is assuredly an argument to be made that extending an open hand to Myanmar’s leaders without focusing on human rights could be a way to eventually lead the country to act as a responsible state. But minimizing the Rohingya’s plight as a mere human rights issue, rather than taking seriously the likelihood of a state-sponsored genocide, may stop the White House from developing a coherent plan of action. This could give Myanmar time and space to conduct a partial extermination of the Rohingya.
Some hold flickering hope that the NLD’s anti-Muslim stunt was just a political one. They hope that the party will sweep the election and somehow demonstrate the political resiliency and capacity to fight back against the nation’s powerful police and security forces, dogmatic government officials and parliamentarians, and Rakhine extremists for the sake of 800,000 disenfranchised Rohingya the international community has already written off. It may be possible, but without a little moral, principled, and honest support from the U.S., we may soon be talking about Barack Obama’s greatest foreign policy regret.
Rachel Wagley is the Director of Government Relations and External Affairs at The National Bureau of Asian Research (NBR), where she leads NBR’s outreach, congressional publications, and communications. Rachel previously served as Policy Director of U.S. Campaign for Burma. Her commentary has been featured in numerous outlets, including the Emory International Law Review, NBR, Policy Forum, New Mandala, Foreign Policy Democracy Lab, Radio Free Asia, Global Post, and Voice of America. Rachel graduated cum laude with high honors in field from Harvard University. After completing her studies, she received a Fulbright grant to research and teach in Uttaradit, Thailand. She has worked extensively with Southeast Asian refugees, and she speaks Thai. You can follow her on Twitter at @RachelWagley.
- See more at: Rohingya Blogger: America’s Myanmar Mistake