A call to reject the Myanmar junta elections

Mizzima Editorial

Former Minister of Foreign Affairs of Malaysia Dato’ Sri Saifuddin Abdullah and other critics argue forcefully that the Myanmar junta’s plan for elections in December and January should not be recognized because the process is inherently flawed and lacking legitimacy. Their objection rests not merely on procedural defects, but on the deeper reality that in the absence of peace, inclusivity, and meaningful competition in Myanmar, such elections would serve as a façade to entrench military rule.

One central criticism is that the elections cannot be truly nationwide. The junta itself has acknowledged that ongoing conflict and territorial fragmentation make it impossible to hold polls across all townships. The fact that only about 145 of Myanmar’s 330 townships are included in the census for preparing voter lists is a stark admission that large portions of the country will be excluded. Critics claim that conducting elections under such conditions means that significant segments of the population – especially in contested ethnic areas – will be disenfranchised.

Equally important is the suppression of the political opposition. Numerous pro‑democracy parties are banned, leaders remain detained – including Aung San Suu Kyi and Win Myint – and many opposition groups have either refused to participate or deemed the process a sham. The rules set by the junta – such as requiring parties to have a minimum membership and financial threshold—are seen as discriminatory filters designed to ensure that only regime-friendly or proxy parties can qualify. Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy refused to take part. In other words, the electoral landscape has already been engineered to produce a compliant legislature.

Saifuddin has also pointed to past instances where the junta unilaterally altered election rules without broad consultation or consensus with stakeholders. To him and like-minded critics, this further undermines the moral and legal credibility of the process. When the rules of the game are imposed by the very actors whose legitimacy is in question, the result cannot fairly be called a democratic election.