Not an Election is the need of the hour in Myanmar

by Dr. Tint Swe

(October 27, New Delhi, Sri Lanka Guardian) The general elections around the world in this year comprise 30 in Europe, 26 in Africa, 19 in Asia, 8 in South America, 1 in New Zealand, and 1 in Australia. In the Electoral Calendar of Maximiliano Herrera Human Rights Links there are 509 various forms of elections in a range of countries in 2010 and the one in Burma is at serial number 461.

Legitimacy is what the Burmese military junta is desperately trying to seek by holding an election. Though legality can only be achieved if proved credible and acceptable, the election process is overly manipulated by the military regime. The legitimacy can only be achieved by independent election monitoring and free media. Elections elsewhere welcome international involvement such as election monitoring and electoral training. Apart from legal recognition, the most criticized election to be held in Burma from 7 to 11 November 2010 is an election to bury the election results of 1990.

The Carter Center has monitored 81 elections in 33 Countries including China, East Timor, Indonesia, Nepal, and the Philippines from Asia. Likewise the National Democratic Institute (NDI), in 2010 alone, has assisted 24 elections and will be doing so in 10 more countries.

The Burmese Election Commission will not permit any observers for the alleged reason that the country has enough experience of holding elections. However it is not the experience that can rule out outside observers and guarantee impartiality as well as credibility of an election. The international, regional and local independent observers work for the elections not only in countries with weak democracies or democracies in transition, but also in the full-grown democracies such as the United States, the United Kingdom, France and Switzerland.

There were two elections in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) regarded as turning points for democratization, one in Indonesia and one in Cambodia. Both were held in the presence of the domestic and foreign election observers including one from Burma�s elected representative residing in exile.

After the collapse of the New Order, the Indonesian election was held in 1999 and 48 political parties participated. So in terms of number it comparable with Burma�s 2010 election in which 37 parties will be contesting after Aung San Suu Kyi�s NLD and 4 other parties were dissolved and or prohibited. The huge difference is the presence or absence of the international observers as well as the motive of the government in power at the time of election.

At any rate, Burmese General Than Swe is not like Indonesian President Jusuf Habibie who supervised the Indonesian legislative election in 1999. The Indonesian elections were overseen by the General Elections Commission (KPU) comprising five government representatives and one from each political party. But all members of the Union Election Commission in Burma are hand-picked by the junta without any representatives of the political parties.

In Cambodia since the signing of the Paris Peace Accords in 1991 ending decades of civil war and foreign occupation, three national elections have taken place in 1993, 1998, and 2003. Although the parliamentary election held on 27 July 2003 was won by the incumbent Prime Minister Hun Sen, it was held in the presence of domestic and foreign election observers.

The Burmese authorities announced that no foreign journalists would be granted entry visa around the election dates. Surely there is something to hide. All military leaders have had training on how to evade gunfire: Seek cover whenever possible, to prevent being shot at. The election in Burma has to take cover from both outsiders and own citizens because even before the election there are 12 journalists and 12 parliamentarians in the prisons. The Paris-based media watchdog Reporters without borders (RSF) has fittingly ranked Burmese media environment at fifth following Iran, Turkmenistan, North Korea and Eritrea.

The people of Burma are wondering how the international community will react to the results of the 2010 election. However they do not expect that the world will dissociate from the upcoming new regime in Burma because a disabled child will be treated more or less equally like a normal one. Maybe some countries including the neighbors might have more sympathy. But it cannot be interpreted as human nature. When all business advantages go readily to those who deal with a crippled regime, moral considerations are overlooked by the countries which practice so-called pragmatic foreign policy when it comes to Burma.

So, then, what is the use of boycotting the election by the winners of the previous 1990 election namely the National League for Democracy (NLD) and the United Nationalities League for Democracy (UNLD)? Why are they together?

There are noticeable anxieties of resurgence of fighting between Burmese army and the larger ceasefire groups after the election. Ethnic unrest entrenched for half a century cannot be settled militarily or by an election. In the new government the ministers responsible for those matters are to be appointed by the president who will be none other than U Than Swe.

Throughout the long colony rule, the policy practiced by British was labeled as "divide and rule" because the subjects were administratively divided. The Frontier Areas, also known as the Excluded Areas or the Scheduled Areas was where all ethnic nationalities were residing. During the final phase of the hectic freedom struggle the Anti-Fascist People's Freedom League (AFPFL) headed by Aung San gained momentum. Before long ethnic leaders of that time realized that they should not be left out and Aung San also felt that their cooperation was very much needed. Ultimately a conference was held in February 1947 at Panglong in the Shan State between the Shan, Kachin and Chin ethnic leaders and Aung San who was head of the interim government. The agenda was united struggle and unified republic when liberated from British. Finaly the British yielded and Burma became independent.

After the 1990 election there have been several joint efforts between the ethnic parties and the NLD. Within three months after the election, on 19-8-1990, the United Nationalities League for Democracy (UNLD) and the NLD signed an agreement on the equal status among all nationalities and later the Committee Representing Peoples" Parliament (CRPP) was jointly formed on 16-9-1998. In the constitution drafting process at the National Convention both sides were excluded by the junta.

As the election orchestrated by the junta is nearing ethnic leaders have joined hands with NLD leaders again. This time they gathered at Kalaymyo which is not far from India-Burma border. On 24th October the leaders of the NLD and the representatives of ethnic nationalities issued the "Kalaymyo Resolution", which calls for a second "Panglong Conference". Aptly Aung San Suu Kyi has termed the pro-democracy movement as the second struggle for independence.

It is their considered view that it is not the second Election but a second Panglong Conference that can bring in permanent peace in Burma.

(Dr. Tint Swe is an elected member of Parliament from Burma from the NLD now living in F-15, Vikas Puri, New Delhi and can be reached at his mobile- 981-000-3286, e-mail drswe01@gmail.com)