An elephant in a glass palace

By Christopher Smith

February 20, 2008 - Simply put, at present there is no prospect of a free and fair referendum or election in Burma. As will be seen, the current state of affairs in Burma fails to sufficiently meet any of the guidelines for deciding an election to be free and fair, as enumerated in a 2006 Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) study, a Geneva-based organization devoted to fostering "co-operation among peoples and for the firm establishment of representative democracy." The IPU guidelines are largely consistent with those espoused by several other entities, including the United States government, European Union, Altsean (Burma) and Human Rights Watch.

Criteria for a free and fair election

Establishment of an electoral system

This initial criterion is not easily definable, as the establishment of a functional and legitimate electoral system rests on variables particular to each case study. The variables in question in turn deal with complex subjects often open to interpretation. In the case of Burma volatile considerations include historical, cultural and political factors.

Clearly there is a huge obstacle to confront politically, as any forthcoming elections will always be conducted in the shadows of the 1990 general election, which saw the National League for Democracy victorious. Cultural factors can loosely be attributed to recognition of the ongoing dilemma over ethnic communities – a concern that has never been adequately solved in the history of the state.

IPU recognizes that not all electoral systems will be identical, but the end product "must facilitate the expression of the will of the people." If not, the worry is that a feeling of disenfranchisement will weigh heavy on a portion of the population, thereby negating the elections as both free and fair. As it stands in Burma, there is the threat of widespread disenfranchisement across political and cultural groups.

Election management and voter registration

The idea that the junta's civilian-backed organization, the Union Solidarity and Development Association (USDA), is to conduct the overall management of the election makes a mockery of the notion that election management not be conducted by the government or any political party. However the reality that Burma is starved of virtually any functional institutions, outside of the military government, appears to point for an inevitable role for the junta in the conduct of the election's management. This scenario could be at least partially mollified if the polling process is conducted in a transparent fashion.

In the end, the IPU report stresses that trust in whoever is conducting the day-to-day operations of an election is of paramount importance. Sadly, there is much room for improvement in trust between many of Burma's people and communities, not least of which again focuses attention on the issue of ethnic states and competing political bodies.

Problems delineating districts are also easily discernable with relation to ethnic groups, geography and infrastructure. However there also remains the highly publicized matter of the current draft constitution's reserving 25 percent of seats for non-elected military personnel – effectively evading the whole debate of drawing district lines by designating representatives with ill-defined constituents.

Voter registration is a critical component if an election is to be conducted freely and fairly, and a critical component of voter registration is that it is conducted, or at least verified, by independent actors. Otherwise claims of illegitimacy may well again persist. A recent statement from Human Rights Watch warns of the impending poll in Burma: "To be free and fair, the referendum must be administered by a neutral election commission."

The current proposal for the USDA to conduct the registration process falls well short of the cries from Human Rights Watch and others that the task be conducted independently. Further, it is very much in doubt as to whether any training regarding how to conduct a vast registration process will be on offer.

The right to vote

Obvious obstacles to overcome in order to meet the free and fair requirements of this criterion entail the inclusion, or exclusion, of distinct populations. Some populations for which the right to vote may be denied include exiles, refugees and prisoners.

Drawing the above mentioned groups into the electoral process poses an immediate threat to those currently in a position of power, as a vast percentage of these populations would presumably not vote in favor of a reincarnated military-dominated political party; the exile community providing home to some of the harshest critics of junta initiatives perceived as striving for the continuation of the military's dominance in politics.

Voter education and information

For voters to be provided with the widest array of information on the process and their candidates, it is generally agreed that there needs to be respect for freedom of the press and media. In countries whose infrastructure and electoral history do not permit a ready-made source for voter education, it is often the case that the international community steps in, as it did in the case of Cambodia in the 1990s.

"Freedom of speech for candidates and political parties — democracies do not restrict candidates or political parties from criticizing the performance of the incumbent" – is listed as a fundamental requirement of elections by the United States Department of State. Given the history of Burma, specifically that of its "incumbent" government, it is easy to see how strict adherence to this right may lead to problems.

Burma has ranked toward the bottom of freedom studies for decades, garnering a title of "not free" in annual Freedom House reports and ranking 163rd out of 167 in the latest democracy rankings conducted by The Economist Intelligence Unit.

Candidates, political parties and electoral campaigns

IPU cites the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as enshrining the principle that every citizen has the right to be elected. This raises an immediate point of contention to the status of opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi, whom the draft constitution apparently bans from serving in high office as a result of her marriage to a British national.

Of organizational concern for parties and candidates in any forthcoming campaign is money. In today's Pakistani elections a national seat is set to go for $800,000. In Burma's case, where are these funds to come from, especially those of opposition candidates? How could the legality of the election be compromised if those residing abroad and international actors are a primary source of funds for opposition candidates?

Electoral campaigns fall under the jurisdiction of state law. Yet in the case of Burma there is a broad spectrum of society that does not acknowledge the rule of the government as legitimate, as well as significant portions of the country largely removed from the imposition of central law.

It is difficult to imagine opposition parties agreeing to be governed on the campaign trail by an authority that is not judged legitimate in the first place.

Balloting and results

Ultimately an election is about casting ballots and counting votes. For this, the population in question must have reasonable access to polling stations and reason to believe that the results will not fall victim to electoral irregularities.

In Burma's case the forecasting of election results well ahead of the actual event could also lead to grave problems. Both a pro-military party and the National League for Democracy, or a reincarnation thereof, will in all probability expect to win. Self-assured in their forthcoming victory, a result contrary to the one expected will likely draw an adverse reaction. Burmese are only too familiar with this potential pitfall, as the junta, for whatever reason, appears to have genuinely expected results in 1990 to turn out differently.

Employment of international monitors to verify results will be complicated by the presumed exclusion of groups and organizations deemed pro-Western and hostile to the regime. Would a regional monitoring body be sufficient to assuage fears of biased monitoring by the larger international community?

What hope there is

Given the junta's dominant position in Burma today, any forthcoming referendum or election would have to rely heavily on the involvement of the military. Yet it is often said that a free and fair election can only be held in an environment that guarantees respect for human rights. Thus, to many who oppose the rule of the generals on the grounds of human rights abuses, a prerequisite for the holding of any election appears to be the removal of the military from power or at least the military's non-involvement in the management of elections. These are scenarios the junta will not accept.

Though international voices have been careful to give their support to the United Nations and its Special Envoy to Burma, the truth is that there are drastically opposed and competing views on what needs to transpire in Burma. Gambari, the Special Envoy to Burma, is not there to work out a surrender of the generals. His, and the United Nations', ongoing activities are to work within the current power structure, which sees the military in the top position. But as long as the military is there, in the front of the line, truly free and fair elections as per widely accepted international definitions cannot occur.

And it should never be forgotten that while the holding of a reasonably free and fair election in Burma would indeed be a celebrated feat, the act of holding an election does not serve as a panacea for a country's problems. In 2002, the Carter Center announced to the world that elections in Kenya were "peaceful and tolerant". In 2008, Kenya has been racked by weeks of post-election violence.

Thomas Jefferson once quipped as to the merits of a new constitution that it is not whether the new constitution is perfect, but rather whether it is better than the one it replaces. The same can be said of elections. As Burma looks forward to a difficult transition period from one-party to multi-party rule, the question to be asked of elections is not "Were they free and fair?", but "Were they freer and fairer?" And it is up to the government to invite all parties into the process and for those involved to then reach an agreement as to what constitutes an acceptable and achievable level of "freer and fairer".

Source: Mizzima News