Philip Robertson Jr on Myanmar election

Key Concepts

• 2008 Constitution (Myanmar): Reserves 25% of parliamentary seats for the military.
• Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP): The military’s political party, formed by former generals.
• Five-Point Consensus: An ASEAN agreement with the Myanmar military junta following the coup, later largely disregarded by the junta.
• Coup d'état: The overthrow of an existing government by a small group, in this case, the Myanmar military.
• Legitimacy (of Election): The acceptance of an election as fair and representative by both domestic and international actors.

Myanmar Election Analysis: A Critical Assessment of Credibility and Stability

Introduction

This discussion focuses on the recently concluded phase one of voting in Myanmar’s election, and the significant doubts surrounding its legitimacy. Philip Robertson, Director of Asia Human Rights and Labor Advocates, provides analysis on the election’s implications, the role of regional actors, and the potential for stability within Myanmar. The core argument presented is that the election is a carefully constructed path towards continued military rule, lacking genuine legitimacy and unlikely to bring meaningful change.

The Election as a Facade for Military Control

Robertson asserts that the election is not a genuine attempt at democratic governance, but rather a “glide path to a military government that will wear civilian clothing.” This assessment is rooted in the 2008 Constitution, which guarantees the military 25% of parliamentary seats. Furthermore, the Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP), comprised of former generals, is expected to win a significant portion of the remaining seats, solidifying military control. He highlights that over 50% of voters resided in areas where elections were not even conducted, further undermining the claim of a legitimate process.

As Robertson states, “they have sort of created a glide path to a military government that will wear civilian clothing.” This emphasizes the pre-determined outcome and the lack of genuine democratic competition.

Regional Acceptance and the Role of ASEAN

The discussion explores the varying levels of acceptance the election is likely to receive from neighboring countries. China and India are predicted to accept the results, while opinions within the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) are divided. Malaysia and the Philippines (the incoming chair) are described as “much more skeptical,” while Cambodia and Vietnam are expected to accept the outcome regardless of its legitimacy. Thailand is positioned as being “on the fence,” prioritizing stability but privately acknowledging the lack of genuine progress.

The potential for countries to seek “concessions” from Myanmar in exchange for recognizing the new government is also raised. This suggests a pragmatic approach from some nations, prioritizing engagement over strict adherence to democratic principles.

The Failed Five-Point Consensus

A critical point of contention is the Myanmar military’s disregard for the ASEAN Five-Point Consensus, agreed upon shortly after the coup d'état. This consensus aimed to establish a framework for resolving the crisis, but was “repudiated” by Min Aung Hlaing upon his return to Myanmar, demonstrating “bad faith negotiations.” Robertson emphasizes that regional actors are demanding “real unilateral reforms” and concrete change, rather than relying on mere promises. He states, “show me that there’s something different. Don’t just say something.” This underscores the lack of trust in the Myanmar military’s commitment to genuine political transition.

Low Voter Turnout and Public Disillusionment

Robertson points to extremely low voter turnout as evidence of the Myanmar people’s lack of confidence in the election. The fact that the election isn’t even happening in many constituencies further illustrates this widespread disillusionment. He characterizes the election as a “democratic charade,” emphasizing that it is merely “going through the motions” without any prospect of meaningful political change. He concludes that the Myanmar people themselves are the “real experts” on their government and military, and their lack of participation speaks volumes.

Stability and the Prospect of Peace

Robertson expresses skepticism that the election will lead to sustained peace or stability within Myanmar. He argues that the election is unlikely to address the underlying issues driving conflict and unrest. He acknowledges the question of whether his assessment is “unduly cynical,” but maintains that the response from the Myanmar people – demonstrated by the low turnout – is the most telling indicator.

Conclusion

The analysis presented by Philip Robertson paints a bleak picture of the Myanmar election. It is characterized as a carefully orchestrated maneuver by the military to consolidate power under the guise of democracy. The lack of legitimacy, both domestically and internationally, coupled with the military’s disregard for previous agreements and the widespread public disillusionment, suggest that the election is unlikely to bring about meaningful change or lasting stability in Myanmar. The future of the country remains uncertain, heavily dependent on the actions of the military junta and the responses of regional and international actors.