Burma’s forthcoming referendum and election

…

_ By Tai Samyone

What are the challenges faced by the people of Burma in these events? The unexpected announcement that the constitution drafting committee had completed its work so soon after the end of the inaccurately named ‘national convention’ to establish principles has no doubt been called by the junta in the face of mounting international criticism. But how to use your vote tactically?

The principles on which the constitution has been constructed are flawed from the beginning; mainly to ensure that the SPDC retain absolute power over the people of Burma. By announcing that Daw Aung San Suu Kyi will not be allowed to stand for election, the SPDC military regime are re-stating something they wrote into the principles when they started their sham convention sixteen years ago; clauses included with the specific purpose of excluding Daw Aung San Suu Kyi from office.

Referendum

The referendum will no doubt be a straightforward choice; do you vote for the proposed constitution or against it? There is a third possibility - that of not voting at all, or of spoiling the voting paper (writing messages for the SPDC, cross out the names and writing your own choice on the paper).

The SPDC will urge everyone to vote for the constitution as the way forward. This will have the inevitable result that the position of power of the SPDC will become entrenched in a constitution which has outwardly been approved by the people (the democratic principle at work).

If there is an overwhelming NO vote, then where does that leave the SPDC? Most observers believe that there SPDC would not have called for a referendum if they could not predict the outcome in their own favour. Will they try to rig the referendum? Will they present the choice in stark terms of continuing SPDC rule, or a chance of change; enough to sway the people to vote for anything that offers the chance of change? By fair means or foul, the SPDC will try to avoid this scenario.

Voting No to the referendum will leave the SPDC still in power holding onto power and with an excuse for extending the road map timetable.

Any boycott may give the SPDC a chance to say “We gave you a fair chance to express your views in the referendum, but you failed to take the opportunity, and you have only yourself to blame!”

The SPDC may of course dismiss any negative vote at the referendum in the way that they ignored the 1990 election results; and declare that they are just evaluating the opinion of the population - and proceed to the election on the basis that the new constitution will reign after that event, whatever the result of the referendum.

We should keep in mind that as soon as a new constitution takes effect (which will be when the SPDC decide to hand over power following the election) everything that happened prior to the new constitution will be nullified. It means that any previous constitution and probably any previous election results (the SPDC still claim that 1990 was not an election) will automatically expire once the new constitution has been approved by the referendum. Will this nullify the Panglong Agreement, which is the only agreement that many ethnic states recognise as still holding any validity in the desire for a truly federal constitution?

Election

It is not yet clear what political parties or individuals will be allowed to stand for election in 2010. The SPDC have already made it clear that DASSK will not be allowed to stand for office - even though her British husband died some years ago and she has been permanently resident in Burma since 1988. If the pro-democracy parties can take part in the elections in 2010, there are three possibilities:

1) The pro-democracy parties may win the elections; but it may very likely be a fruitless or futile victory because the 2008 constitution gives 25% of seats in the parliament to military officers, and it states that the President must come from military background, and it allows military to veto any decisions by the parliament, and it also gives permission to the military to annex power at any time they want. This could lead to a deadlock between a power-less government and a power-grasping dictator; the SPDC still ruling the country.

2) The regime may use its lackey militant organizations like Kyant-phut or Swan-arr-shin to intimidate and to prevent people from voting for pro-democracy parties, delivering a de-facto defeat to the pro-democracy parties. With the USDA or other military controlled party in power, the SPDC will continue to hold on to power, albeit under a different guise.

3) If pro-democracy parties boycott the 2010 elections, there are two outcomes:

Firstly, the boycott by pro-democracy activists will damage the credibility of elections, and send a clear message to the world that the elections are invalid.

And, secondly, it will effectively clear the way for pro-regime parties and military officers to control 100% of seats in the parliament.

So we understand that whatever way the voting goes in either the referendum or the election, the SPDC will still retain power.

Analysis

What is clear is that the SPDC are preparing for a change in the mechanisms of government and a nominally transfer of power from the SPDC to the ostensibly civilian parliament. This is a good sign because it offers the possibility of change; even though the SPDC are still trying to control every aspect of the process to ensure that they remain in power. This does give the pro-democracy movement an opportunity to speak about the process and influence those countries and international bodies that have an interest in Burma. I would also suggest that it gives an opportunity to influence the SPDC directly, but I think we know from previous experience that any such attempt that appears to have popular support leads to house arrest or imprisonment for treason and other trumped up charges. The positive aspect of the announcement is that there is a process in sight and an opportunity to influence it - one that we must all grasp to best of our abilities.

What is also positive is that the SPDC talk about civilian parliament and democracy (even though their definitions of these terms differ wildly from that of any democracy or civilian ruled country). This will be a welcome change for those waiting since 1962 for the return to parliamentary democracy, and should have taken place 18 years ago following the free and fair elections in 1990! But at least we now have a time frame to work towards.

What is troubling at present is that the SPDC are not only controlling every aspect of the process, but have set their lapdogs loose in making preparations. This isn’t a consultation process; it is ‘giving instructions’ to the USDA to do their bidding. What we should be doing is to explaining to the international community that the elections should be held following discussions with ALL interested parties, and not just the SPDC’s hand-picked cronies. There needs to be discussion with the political players and winners of the 1990 elections, and both the ceasefire and non-ceasefire groups. Both the SPDC and NLD/DASSK have stressed the need for the inclusion of the ethnic groups in the ongoing political discussions. At present the SPDC are still reliant on persuasion and bullying of ethnic ceasefire groups to push through their discussion with “over 100 different ethnic nationalities”. There are still very strong voices in the non-ceasefire groups and with pro-democracy and ethnic groups exiled outside of Burma. These groups need to be included in any peaceful solution to Burma’s political future.

The SPDC will be under international scrutiny from the UN, ASEAN, EU and the regional neighbours. They will need to show that they have a fair process for the referendum and election. It will be important for the voting to be shown to free and fair; independent international monitors can assist in this process, as they have done in other sensitive areas voting world-wide. This is something that we should be calling for; the SPDC can hardly prevent this if they wish to be shown to be open and credible.

Regarding the issue of who can stand for election and who cannot, it is important to establish that there are at least 1200 (or is it 1500, or more!) political prisoners in Burma, including DASSK. The international community can and should be doing more to bring about the release of these political players for the discussions about the election process and for inclusion in the whole constitution and election process; Burma’s future leaders being presently in jail puts them in good company with yesterday’s freedom fighters and today’s heroes and champions of freedom around the world.

What we all wish for is an end to the SPDC. But the SPDC are working towards entrenching themselves in power for ever (yes, they are that delusional). Given this current opportunity for progress, we need to grasp it and seek out the best we can from the meagre offerings on show today. Tomorrow may bring all that we desire.

……………………………………..