BURMA

With the junta-style elections imminent (today), I was wondering how I felt about Aung San Suu Kyi’s pleas to boycott the election, as any outcome would lead to no change – the military have a final say over election results and have the power to veto any piece of legislation.

Having been under house arrest for the best part of twenty years and unable to stand for the National League for Democracy in this election (the first since her ignored victory in 1990), Suu Kyi has recommended Burmese voters to keep away from the elections as they are clearly undemocratic. The government has banned many local candidates to stand for the legislature (the Kachin State Progressive Party has been forbidden from participating), and in some cases has completely disenfranchised whole towns . In this way her pleas make sense – if there is no point doing something, then it is a waste of time doing it. Instead, time should be focused on improving situations via other means – part of Suu Kyi’s Nobel Peace Prize money funds London’s Project Burma, offering higher education grants to Burmese students. Also, Obama’s demand for her release shows an increasing international effort to better the lot of the oppressed Burmese. ‘The Lady’ has a point – those who want real democracy are better off acting outside the box and ignoring the election in the same way the junta will ignore the results.

However, there are hundreds of independent candidates fighting for the slim chance of a seat in the closed-off and rich capital city of Naypyidaw, a city only used by government officials with the architecture and grandeur of an MEDC (a feat unmatched by any other part of the country). These pro-democratic political hopefuls who are so oppressed that they cannot hold meetings of over five people without government permission are surely a fantastic example of grassroots protest – a phenomenon that should be encouraged. Generally members of the chattering classes, these candidates are not allowed to outwardly criticize the junta, but 40% government spending on the army and 1% on health and education are figures that speak for themselves. No matter how many votes they receive it is unlikely that any of these people will be permitted to win a seat, but surely any stand counts for something, and a reasonable turnout to support these democratic candidates is an undeniable signal of unrest (not to be compared with the unrest shown by monks in 2007 – any election result is still within the junta’s legal boundaries).

As I see it, Aung San Suu Kyi’s denunciation of the elections is rational as they count for nothing apart from increasing an oppressive regime’s mandate. However, my inherent instinct would be to vote. I firmly believe that if you are offered participation in an election, that right should be fulfilled. This is irrational, but I cannot help the way I feel. In this way, I hope that many Burmese people vote for independent candidates as this is their only possible safe act of defiance (this is of course assuming that the junta have no way of identifying whose ballot is whose). To conclude, the Burmese elections are an insult to democracy, but any vote is a vote and should be used regardless.