Assessing Burma’s Parliamentary Elections

Assessing Burma’s Parliamentary Elections

November 4, 2015
Assessing Burma’s Parliamentary Elections
On November 8, 2015, Burma (Myanmar) is scheduled to
Transparency
hold its second nationwide parliamentary election since the
Burma’s 2008 constitution confers complete authority over
military junta that seized power in 1962 transferred power
elections to the Union Election Commission (UEC), which
to a mixed civilian/military government in March 2011.
is appointed by the president. The chairman is Tin Aye, a
President Thein Sein and the Union Election Commission
retired lieutenant general and previously a USDP member
(UEC) have promised that the election will be free and fair
of parliament. Under the constitution, the UEC’s decisions
according to international standards. The Obama
are “final and conclusive” with respect to the conduct of the
Administration has called on the Burmese authorities to
elections, the campaign activities of political parties and
hold “transparent, inclusive, and credible” elections.
their candidates, the counting of the ballots, and the
announcement of the official results.
Developments during the campaign period and some
aspects of the election rules and regulations have prompted
The UEC is permitting international election monitors,
concerns that the elections could fall short of being either
including delegations from the Carter Center and the
“free and fair,” or “transparent, inclusive, and credible.”
European Union, as well as the foreign embassies in
Some observers argue that President Thein Sein, the UEC,
Burma. The election monitors reportedly are not being
Burma’s military (also known as the Tatmadaw), and the
provided full access to advance balloting, particularly on
pro-military Union Solidarity and Development Party
military installations. Access to advance balloting may be
(USDP) appear to be seeking to ensure that the USDP wins
important as the results in 2010 were affected by the last-
enough seats in Burma’s bicameral Union Parliament to
minute delivery of ballot boxes containing advance ballots.
retain power and select a pro-military president. Other
observers, however, argue that despite some irregularities in
The UEC issued the election rules in May 2014, but
the election process, the results will likely reflect the wishes
subsequently revised them after complaints from various
of the Burmese people.
political parties who felt the rules were overly restrictive.
Aung San Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy
“Free and Fair,” and “Transparent,
(NLD) and other political parties claim that their candidates
Inclusive, and Credible”
are being arbitrarily and unfairly restricted in their
For many years, the international community has judged
campaign activities by local UEC officials citing provisions
elections around the world by whether observers deemed
in the revised election rules and regulations.
them to be “free and fair.” In March 1994, the Inter-
Parliamentary Union (IPU), to which Burma is a member
The UEC has also been criticized for its lack of
and the United States is not, adopted a set of criteria for free
transparency over its rejection of 88 candidates, including
and fair elections. Those criteria covered voting and
17 of the 18 candidates from the largely-Muslim
election rights, the rights and responsibilities of candidates
Democracy and Human Rights Party (DHRP) and at least
and political parties, and the rights and responsibilities of
one Rohingya candidate who is currently a member of
the government in conducting free and fair elections.
parliament, Shwe Maung. While 11 of the candidates,
Among the criteria are the right of every adult citizen to
including Shwe Maung, were reinstated as candidates upon
vote on a non-discriminatory basis; the right to appeal if
appeal, the circumstances around the initial decision to bar
denied the right to vote; the right to campaign “on an equal
their candidacies remain unclear.
basis” throughout the country; equal access to the media for
all candidates and political parties; the provision of “an
Inclusiveness
effective, impartial and non-discriminatory procedure for
In terms of the number of political parties fielding
the registration of voters”; and the provision of a voting
candidates, the 2015 elections are expected to be more
process “so as to avoid fraud or other illegality.”
inclusive than the 2010 elections. A total of 92 political
parties have candidates in the 2015 election, compared to
Some observers have challenged the use of “free and fair”
40 in 2010. However, in terms of the number of people
for being too vague and potentially implying thresholds that
eligible to vote, the 2015 elections may be viewed as less
could be too high for many countries realistically to meet.
inclusive than the 2010 elections.
The Obama Administration and the State Department have
generally used the terms “transparent, inclusive, and
The UEC has experienced continuing problems in
credible” with reference to assessing the Burmese elections. compiling an accurate voter registration list. In late May,
the UEC posted initial voter registration lists across the
Issues in the Election Process
country, which the NLD and other political parties claimed
Several recent developments prompt concerns about
were 30%-80% inaccurate. The UEC made revisions to the
whether Burma’s upcoming elections will meet either
lists, which were posted in late September. However, the
standard or those international standards.
NLD and others continued to find errors, including “fake
https://crsreports.congress.gov

Assessing Burma’s Parliamentary Elections
people” (that is, individuals who do not exist) and the
faction only needs to win more than 25% of the seats to
omission of previously registered voters. The UEC’s
have a majority in the parliament.
seeming inability to compile an accurate voter registration
list has prompted some observers to speculate that it could
Ceasefire Agreement and the Elections
be trying to influence the election in favor of the USDP.
On October 15, 2015, President Thein Sein, Commander-
in-Chief Senior General Min Aung Hlaing, and
The UEC has also decided that voting will not take place in
representatives of eight ethnic organizations signed a
more than 600 villages because it is “impossible to hold
ceasefire agreement in Burma’s capital city of Naypyitaw.
elections in a free and fair manner” in those locations. The
(see CRS Insight IN10374, Less-than-Nationwide Ceasefire
decision will prevent large numbers of voters from
Agreement Signed in Burma, by Michael F. Martin).
participating in the election. Many of the villages are
However, more than a dozen ethnic organizations did not
located in or near areas where the Tatmadaw and various
sign the agreement, leaving it well short of the nationwide
ethnic groups are involved in periodic fighting. However,
accord President Thein Sein had sought.
some of the villages reportedly are not near such fighting.
Some observers claim that the UEC has barred voting in
Since the agreement was signed, new fighting has broken
certain villages because the voters might support ethnic
out between the Burmese military and the militias of some
parties over the USDP.
of the non-signators to the agreement, including National
Socialist Council of Nagaland-Khaplang, the Shan State
Another factor undermining the inclusiveness of the 2015
Progressive Party, and the Ta'ang National Liberation
election is President Thein Sein’s decision to withdraw the
Army. The increase in fighting has raised the possibility
voting rights of the Rohingyas of Rakhine State. The
that the UEC could add locations to the list of areas where
Rohingyas have been able to vote in every previous election
voting will not take place due to security concerns.
in Burma, including the 2010 elections. However, President
Thein Sein in February withdrew their eligibility on the
Implications for U.S. Relations with
grounds that the Rohingyas are not citizens (in 1982,
Burma
Burma’s military junta promulgated a new citizenship law
The Obama Administration has identified the November
that effectively took away the Rohingyas’ citizenship).
elections as a crucial event for the future of democracy and
According to one report, the decision removed about
political reform in Burma. How the elections are conducted,
750,000 Rohingyas from the voter registration list.
as well as their outcome, could have a significant impact on
future U.S. relations with Burma.
A smaller group of people who will be unable to participate
in the 2015 elections are the approximately 100 alleged
According to some observers, the political situation in
political prisoners currently in detention. Two Burmese
Burma may remain unsettled after the election results are
organizations, the Assistance Association for Political
announced. Although many analysts anticipate that the
Prisoners (AAPP) and the Former Political Prisoners
NLD will emerge with the most seats in the new Union
Society (FPPS), have called for the release of all political
Parliament, it may not win enough seats to form a majority
prisoners before the November elections.
coalition and control the selection of Burma’s next
president. Similarly, it is uncertain if the SPDC and its
Credibility
allied political parties can win enough seats to form a
Problems with the transparency and inclusivity of the
majority in the Union Parliament. The nature of changes in
electoral environment have raised questions about the
Burma’s government may remain unclear until the Union
credibility of the election results. With potentially millions
Parliament selects the next president in March 2016.
of legitimate voters unable to vote, candidates barred from
running or campaigning as they wish, and some voters
President Thein Sein and his senior advisors have indicated
unable to meet or hear the candidates in their districts, it is
they hope that by holding relatively free and fair elections,
unclear whether the results will reflect the preferences of
they will have demonstrated to Congress and the Obama
Burmese voters or whether authorities will be held
Administration their commitment to democratic reforms
accountable for violations of voter rights.
and obtain the removal or repeal of the restrictions on U.S.
relations with Burma that remain in place, such as a visa
In addition, under the 2008 constitution, 25% of the seats in
ban on certain Burmese nationals. Commander-in-Chief
the Union Parliament are reserved for active duty military
Min Aung Hlaing and Burma’s military leaders would like
officers, who are appointed to the Parliament by the
to see the restrictions on military-to-military relations lifted
Tatmadaw’s commander-in-chief, Senior General Min
following the completion of the parliamentary elections.
Aung Hlaing. As a result, the threshold for gaining control
Whether or not these goals are met may depend in part on
of the parliament, and by extension, the selection of the
how Congress and the Obama Administration assess the
president and vice presidents, is lower for the pro-military
November elections.
USDP and its supporters than it is for the NLD and its
supporters. Whereas the NLD would need to win more than
Michael F. Martin, Specialist in Asian Affairs
50% of seats to gain control of the parliament, the USDP
IF10314

https://crsreports.congress.gov

Assessing Burma’s Parliamentary Elections

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to
congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress.
Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has
been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the
United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be
reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include
copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you
wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

https://crsreports.congress.gov | IF10314 · VERSION 2 · NEW