2010 Election in Burma: The Beginning of Competitive

Authoritarianism and the Responsibility of the International

Community to overcome the Machiavellian Political Process

28 October 2010

Burma Independence Advocates

London.

1
Contents

Executive Summary

I. Introduction

II. The Struggle for Second Independence

III. The 1990 Elections: The Reward for Thousands of Martyrs

IV. The Devious Acts of Dictatorship

V. The 7-Step Machiavellian Political Process

VI. The 2010 Elections: The Beginning of Competitive

Authoritarianism

VII. Shwegondaing Declaration: The Solution to Burma’s crisis

Conclusion

Contributors

2
 Executive Summary

The troubled state of Southeast Asia, Burma - also known as - Myanmar has
attracted the attention of the world over the last two decades for its notorious
Generals in power and the Lady who has sacrificed her life in prolonged
detention for the freedom of her fellow citizens. The country hosting more
than 2100 political prisoners, where any kinds of defiance to those in power
will face severe punishments, is ready for a general election on 7 November
2010. The second General Elections held under the supervision of military
junta is claimed to be the progress towards democracy by not only the ruling
Generals but those who see the process as a positive step towards
democracy. In reality, the election is simply a process of not only the change
of clothes to the Generals but the change of name to the regime. The election
on November 7 is the beginning of competitive authoritarianism in Burma
which is a crucial step for the junta to renew the military rule though a sham
election designed to ensure the victory of military party, Union Solidarity
and Development Party (USDP). The international community must reject
the complete sham, unjust and unfair election of tyranny unanimously. The
international community must clearly call for the junta to resolve the issues
raised by the NLD through its Shwegondaing Declaration which is the true
resolution to the decades-long political crisis in the country. It is important
to understand and review the crisis in Burma by looking at the major
political scenarios in the past twenty years that the military junta
systematically manipulated. This report is to remind the historic reality of
Burma’s struggle for democracy and the injustice caused by the junta over
the last two decades. The international community must be ethical and
morally right on their stance towards the crisis in Burma at this critical
juncture. It has been disappointing to see and hear the positive hopes on the
upcoming elections.

The two elections which are twenty years apart from each other have their
own distinct features and underlying meanings of justice and injustice. The
first general election held in 1990 was the direct outcome of nationwide
demonstrations which toppled the one-party dictatorship in 1988. The
countrywide uprisings against dictator General Ne Win’s rule was given the
name as ‘the second struggle for independence’ by the democratic leader
Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and the people overwhelmingly voted for Daw
Aung San Suu Kyi and her party, the National League for Democracy
(NLD) in 1990 elections which were a relatively free and fair, despite some
restrictions and harassments imposed by the military junta, the State Law
and Order Restoration Council (SLORC). Following the election victory of
3
Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and the NLD, the hope of transition to civilian rule
and democracy was destroyed as the junta broke its promise of transferring
power to the election winning party on the ground of drafting a new
constitution. The junta claimed that the responsibility of the election winning
party is to write a new constitution and not to rule the country. However, the
NLD was not given its right to draft a new constitution.

The so-called National Convention which oversaw the process of drafting a

new constitution was held under the junta’s strict and unfair terms which
eventually forced the NLD to withdraw from the process. Whether the NLD
departed the National Convention, the regime had been prepared and
systematically planned to hold the power forever since the first day of coup
d’état. The so-called 7-step roadmap to democracy was unveiled in 2003 in
order to deceive the international community. In fact, the 7-step roadmap is
the Machiavellian political process misleading the world and the people of
Burma to believe in the complete sham transition to democracy. The major
step of the roadmap, holding an election which is designed to ensure the
victory of the junta’s proxy party should not be embraced as progress, but is
in fact the process to undermine genuine democratic values and abuse the
freedoms and rights in the name of democracy. The elections in Burma on 7
November 2010 is simply the beginning of competitive authoritarianism and
the democratic countries in the world must not be deceived only by looking
at the term ‘election’ but the terms prescribed by the junta which do not
reflect the genuine and intrinsic nature of liberty and equality.

I. Introduction
The elections due to be held on 7th November, 2010 will not bring any
significant changes to the political landscape of Burma as some people hope.
Although there are a few political parties and individuals participating in the
election with a little hope of reserving their voice in the future parliament,
these parties and individuals are at great risk of being defeated by the junta
proxy party, Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP). The whole
process of the 7-step roadmap including the 5th step, which is to hold the
elections, has been intrinsically flawed, devious and systematically designed
for the military dominance in the state affairs. In a country where there is no
justice at all and the unfair terms and conditions imposed by the regime on
the political parties prove that they are not willing to give 75% seats to non-
military candidates after reserving 25% military seats.

The 2010 Elections in the country is the process to form a parliament that
constitutes 25% military officials and 75% ex-military officials. Therefore,
the election with no respect to the intrinsic values of freedoms and equality
will not bring a genuine democracy to Burma. Burma’s transition will be to
4
competitive authoritarianism instead of a transition to genuine democracy.
The calls for free, fair, participatory and inclusive elections in Burma at this
time are in fact too late and irrelevant. Burma has experienced the relatively
free and fair elections in 1990 when the people of Burma voted for Daw
Aung San Suu Kyi and the NLD. The election outcome, the true will of the
people and the reward for thousands of martyrs being killed by the junta’s
brutal troops in 1988 protests has never been honoured.

The junta that never honoured the result of 1990 election will never honour
the result of another free and fair election in the country whenever there is
one in the future. If there is going to be a free and fair election in Burma,
then the result of free and fair election in 1990 still needs to be implemented
before the NLD and Daw Aung Suu Kyi participate for another free and fair
election.

II. The Struggle for Second Independence

The newly independent Burma in 1948 did not have a chance to enjoy
democracy for long following its independence from the Britain. The civil
war-torn country fell under the dictator, General Ne Win’s single-party
dictatorship in 1962 following the military coup and the poverty-stricken
country was designated as a least developed country (LDC) in 1987 under
General Ne Win’s Burma Socialist Programme Party. Burma is still a least
developed country despite its abundant natural resources because of the
decades-long political crisis. When the life in Burma was no longer different
between the dead and alive, the people of Burma took to the streets and the
historic Four 8s mass-demonstrations eventually curtailed the single-party
dictatorship in 1988. Thousands of people sacrificed their lives to liberalise
the country from the tyranny but the new generation military chiefs simply
did not join the people and rather went for the political power to abuse. The
power of the people and their resolution for democracy which expressed
through unflagging marches on the streets was praised and honoured by the
leader Daw Aung San Suu Kyi as ‘the Second Struggle for Independence’.
The daughter of the architect of Burma’s first independence, General Aung
San became the leader of the country’s second struggle for independence.

III. The 1990 Elections: The Reward for Thousands of Martyrs

Following the bloodshed of the military coup, the military junta, State Law
and Order Restoration Council (SLORC) officially announced on 18th
September 1988 through Announcement No. 1/88 that multi-party elections
would be held.1 The junta enacted law number 14/89, Pyithu Hluttaw or

1
Announcement 1/88: Announced through state-run MRTV and later published on Working People’s Daily
5
People’s Assembly (Parliament) Election Law on 31st May 1989, which
stated that free and fair multi-party elections were to be held to select
members of the People’s Assembly (Parliament). This law states that the
Parliament would be convened after recognizing the election results.2
Further, at its 43rd News Conference on 9th June 1989, SLORC stated:
"Presently we have two constitutions in our country; that is the 1947 Constitution
and the 1974 constitution … The elected representatives can choose one of the
constitutions to form a government, and we will transfer power to the government
formed by them. We are ready to transfer power to the government that emerges
according to the constitution. If they do not like the two existing constitutions,
they can draw up the constitution …”3

Despite the restrictions on free expression and association that severely

restricted campaigning, the ballot itself was conducted in a relatively free
and fair manner on 27 May 1990. Elections were held in 485 Constituencies
out of 492 and 15.1 million out of 20.8 eligible voters cast votes. The
National League for Democracy (NLD) won almost 60% votes and secured
392 out of 485 seats.

IV. The Devious Acts of Dictatorship

The ruling junta, State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC)
blatantly refused to transfer power to the election winning party NLD by
issuing the Declaration No. 1/90 on 27th July, 1990 which stated that the
responsibility of the election winning party was to draw a new constitution.4
By issuing this declaration, the junta broke its own Pyithu Hluttaw or
People’s Assembly (Parliament) Election Law enacted on 31st May, 1989
which clearly stated that the Parliament would be convened after
recognizing the election results. In addition, according to its statement at the
43rd News Conference on 9th June, 1989, the representatives elected
through elections in 1990 can choose one of the previous constitutions,
either the 1947 Constitution or the 1974 Constitution to form a government.
The NLD would need to draft a new constitution only on the occasion of not
using the previous constitutions.

The NLD drafted a new constitution based on 1947 Constitution and on 29th
July, 1990 called for the convention of People’s Assembly or Parliament
through its Gandhi Hall Declaration. However, the junta broke its own
promise again by not allowing the NLD to draft the constitution. The process
of drafting a new constitution was held under the name of National
Convention which began on 9th January, 1993 under the junta’s strict
supervision. The majority of delegates participating in the process were
2
Burma Library: Pyithu Hluttaw Election Law, 31 May 1989
3
Burma Lawyers’ Council: Burma – Military and its constitution
4
Declaration No. 1/90: Working People’s Daily (29 Jul 1990)
6
selected and appointed by the junta whereas only 15% of elected
representatives were allowed under strict guidelines laid down by the junta.
Only 107 out of 702 delegates were elected representatives and the process
was tightly controlled and guided by the junta. The freedom of expression
and debates were severely constrained and the elected representatives were
not given their right to draw the constitution which was stated by the junta
following its denial of convening parliament. The junta explicitly stated at
its 43rd News Conference that the Tatmadaw (military) and the State Law
and Order Restoration Council (SLORC) will not draw up a new
constitution; only the elected representatives can, and, if the people then
approve it, "power will be handed over to a government created out of the
new constitution." There is no need to worry. "We are ready to transfer
power."5

The NLD requested the junta to allow more freedoms in the constitution
drafting process. Following the junta’s rejection of its request, the NLD
withdrew from the completely unfair process of constitution drafting in
National Convention in 1995. Since then, the junta unilaterally drafted the
constitution which would give an ultimate control of military in the political
and state affairs. The National Convention culminated and the draft
constitution finalized after 15 years in 19th February, 2008 following many
recesses and a long adjournment. The constitution was approved through a
referendum in May, 2008 which was denounced as a complete sham and
rigged referendum not only by the people of Burma but the international
community.

V. The 7-Step Machiavellian Political Process

The Prime Minister Gen. Khin Nyunt of State Peace and Development
Council (SPDC) announced the 7-step roadmap in his address to SPDC
members, government departments and local NGOs but not to foreign
diplomats and INGOs on 30th August, 2003. The roadmap is carefully and
systematically crafted to deceive the international community that Burma is
on the way to democracy. Further, the process aims to sideline the NLD and
Daw Aung San Suu Kyi as well as the 1990 elections result which has never
been honoured. The first step to the third step of roadmap consists of
reconvening the National Convention which has been adjourned since 1996,
implementing any necessary process for the emergence of so-called
disciplined democratic state and the drafting of a new constitution that
agrees to the guidelines by the National Convention. The adoption of a new
constitution which guarantees the dominant role of the military in political

5
Burma Library: Working People’s Daily, VOL III, No. 6, June, 1989.
7
affairs was completed through a rigged referendum in May, 2008 as the
fourth step of the roadmap.

VI. The 2010 Elections: The Beginning of Competitive

Authoritarianism
The junta enacted series of unjust election laws since early March 2010,
which bars political prisoners, including former political prisoners from
participating in the election. Furthermore, the election laws stated that the
parties that entered the 1990 election need to re-register under new laws and
those that fail to register must relinquish their legal status of a political party.
Due to unjust and utterly unfair rules and regulations of the junta, the 1990
election winning party NLD decided not to re-register the party and to
boycott the sham election which is designed to elect a puppet civilian
government. Although a few political parties registered for the election,
these parties are facing severe difficulties such as high registration fees, lack
of freedoms on election campaigns and unfair restrictions on campaigning
activities. Nevertheless, the junta proxy party, Union Solidarity and
Development Party (USDP) has been vigorously campaigning for the
election and fielding candidates in every single constituency while other
parties can afford for relatively few candidates to enter the election.

It is completely obvious that the unfair and devious terms on the elections
are designed to ensure the victory of junta proxy party, Union Solidarity and
Development Party (USDP). The junta will make sure the victory of its
proxy party whenever there is an election due in the future according to their
military-dominated constitution. By ensuring the electoral victory for the
ruling party, it is simply the competitive authoritarianism that Burma will be
transitioning to, instead of genuine democracy. The 2010 General Election
in Burma is neither a necessary nor a genuine process of transition to
democracy. Since its announcement of holding an election in 2010, the
international community has called for the free and fair election which is
inclusive and fully participatory. However, such a call is indeed not
necessary as Burma held a relatively free, fair and inclusive election in 1990
which the people of Burma voted for the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Daw
Aung San Suu Kyi and her party, the National League for Democracy
(NLD). The result of the 1990 elections still needs to be implemented. The
will of the people still needs to be respected.

VII. Shwegondaing Declaration: The Solution to Burma’s Crisis

On 29th April 2009, the NLD issued the Shwegondaing Declaration
demanding that the junta release all political prisoners, accept the 1990
election results, review the 2008 Constitution, and begin a dialogue with
Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. The Shwegondaing Declaration underlines the
8
crucial matters that need to be resolved in order to achieve a genuine
reconciliation and transition to democracy. Holding more than 2,100
political prisoners across the country and claiming that the democracy is on
the way by the regime is completely contradictory to the will of the people
as well as the international legal standards. The release of all the political
prisoners including Daw Aung San Suu Kyi is an essential and crucial step
towards a transition to democracy. Further, the issues such as recognising
and implementing the 1990 election result, and reviewing and redrafting of
the 2008 constitution will only be resolved through the dialogue between
Daw Aung San Su Kyi, the ethnic minorities and the ruling junta. Therefore,
the political deadlock in Burma will only be resolved by addressing the
issues highlighted in Shwegondaing Declaration. The transition to
democracy will only be genuine and possible when the elected
representatives of the 1990 election, including the NLD and other ethnic
representatives, are allowed to convene a parliament. Members of the NLD’s
Central Committee voted unanimously not to register for the upcoming
elections at the Central Committee meeting on 29th March 2010 and Daw
Aung San Suu Kyi supported the decision of the party. The decision of the
NLD and majority of the people of Burma to boycott the sham election
means the struggle for democracy in Burma will continue until the day a
genuine civilian government emerges. Now, it is time for the international
community to stay ethical and morally right by rejecting the sham election
and supporting the Shwegondaing Declaration.

Conclusion

The struggle for ‘Second Independence’ will continue until the country
reaches the day when the people can enjoy their fundamental rights and
freedoms without any kind of fear under a genuine civilian and democratic
government. Although the single-party dictatorship was overthrown by the
power of people in 1988, the transition to democracy was interrupted by the
new generation of military tyrants who never honoured the will of the people
expressed through the 1990 general election. The broken promises and
devious acts of the junta caused further political chaos for two decades and
eventually the 7-step Machiavellian political process was formulated in
2003. The fifth step of the roadmap which leads to ultimate control of
political power by the dictators is now about to be unveiled. The final two
steps of the junta’s roadmap which are to convene the parliament with
Generals-turned-civilians and military officials and building the modern and
developed nation led by the state leaders (who must be former military
officials) elected by the Hluttaw or Parliament. From the first to the last step
of the junta’s roadmap to democracy is the devious process that the
international community needs to overcome and not to fall into the trap of
9
the regime. The international community must not be deceived by the junta’s
Machiavellian political process and the election on 7 November 2010 must
be denounced. Failing to act on the sham election will be a shame to the
international community and the act of betraying genuine democratic values.

Contributors:
Zaw Nay Aung is a Burmese political refugee in the United Kingdom. He studied at
Dagon University (Burma), Thames Valley University and Royal Holloway, University
of London. He was supported by the Open Society Institute, Prospect Burma and Charles
Wallace Trust for MSc in Democracy, Politics and Governance at Royal Holloway,
University of London.

Ruth Shaikh has a MA in International Peace and Security from King’s College,
University of London and BA (Hons 2:1) in International Relations from Leeds
University. She worked as an intern for The Grotius Centre for International Legal
Studies and AKE Security and Risk Advisory.

Lucy Beck has an MSc Theory and History of International Relations from LSE, the
London School of Economics and Political Science. She learned about political conflicts
in Burma during her studies at the LSE. She also has a BA (Hons) in History from the
University of Sheffield.

Matthew More has an MSc in Globalisation and Development from the School of
Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) and prestigious BA (Hons 2.1) in Philosophy,
Politics and Economics (PPE) from the University of Hull. He has an extensive work
experience as an Executive Officer for the Home Office Oakington Immigration Centre
and research experience at Immigration Advisory Service.

10