Burma’s Stolen Elections

By YENI

As the US election race enters the home stretch, voters across the country are braving long lines and bracing for malfunctioning machines and other unforeseen problems to exercise their right to choose their leaders and lawmakers.

This year’s election is expected to see a record turnout, as Americans decide if their next president will be the first non-white leader in their country’s history. And, at a time when economic insecurity has reached levels not seen in generations, many know that their choice will have important consequences for years to come.

Many people around the world have taken a strong interest in the outcome of this election, and Burmese are no exception. Although it is not clear which candidate is more likely to help Burma achieve its dream of democracy, the election itself stands as a powerful affirmation of the importance of allowing people to choose their political destiny.

In democratic societies, elections serve as the essential groundwork for the participation of citizens in their country’s affairs. Elections give voters a chance to choose their representatives, who, at the very least, can make their supporters’ voices heard in parliament, or, if they belong to the party in the majority, form the government.

In Burma, however, the people have rarely ever been given an opportunity to decide who their leaders will be.

One important exception: In April 1947, on the eve of achieving their independence from British colonial control, they elected the Anti-Fascist People’s Freedom League (AFPFL), led by national hero Aung San, by a landslide.

Even after Aung San was assassinated by a political rival, and despite dealing with armed rebellion from various ethnic groups and communist factions, Burma continued to follow a democratic system. Elections were beset by poll fraud and political assassinations by some members of the ruling AFPFL, but governments continued to be formed by representatives of the people, chosen through parliamentary elections.

This all changed in 1962, when Gen Ne Win seized state power from the elected government of Prime Minister U Nu. The voting system suddenly came under the total control of the ruling regime, and election results were widely dismissed by the public as mere fabrications.

After a nationwide uprising in 1988, Burma finally held a free and fair election in 1990. The National League for Democracy, led by detained Aung San Suu Kyi, Aung San’s daughter, won 392 of the 485 seats in parliament. But the ruling regime never recognized the result of that election, and has continued to hold power ever since.

In May of this year, the regime decided to hold another vote—a referendum on a constitution that will cement its hold on power. Using intimidation, threats and fraud, the country’s military leaders strong-armed voters into approving the profoundly undemocratic constitution, which guarantees 25 percent of parliamentary seats to the military and instructs that no amendments can be made to it without the consent of more than 75 percent of lawmakers, making any proposed changes unlikely unless supported by the military.

Now the junta is promising to hold elections in 2010. Meanwhile, most opposition members are behind bars, where many of them have been since winning the election in 1990.

Should we welcome the military rulers’ promise of elections? We would, if they demonstrated any commitment to creating a pluralistic environment, which is essential for achieving and sustaining democracy.

“Democratic elections are not merely symbolic,” said Jeane Kirkpatrick, the late US scholar and former ambassador to the United Nations. “They are competitive, periodic, inclusive, definitive elections in which the chief decision-makers in a government are selected by citizens who enjoy broad freedom to criticize government, to publish their criticism and to present alternatives.”

Sadly, there is no sign that Burma’s military rulers are willing to countenance any alternatives to their vision of the country’s future. Around 2,000 political prisoners—imprisoned for expressing themselves—remain in prison.

Whatever the outcome of the election in the US, at least Americans know that result has not been a foregone conclusion. For Burmese, however, elections are no more than a parody of their most profound aspirations.