By Moe Myint

CAN an election rife with electoral fraud in a country claiming to be democratic truly reflect the values of democ­racy? And how can a democracy propped up by foreign financial support — essentially under for­eign influence — be considered genuine?

Why have democratic values declined?

When the true culprit, who severely committed distorting thoughts of the Myanmar people and the decline of Myanmar’s character, culture, values, and national identity, was searched, it became apparent that individ­uals and groups who practised a flawed version of democracy were responsible.

In a democratic country, when those who practise democracy themselves end up being used and manipulated — under the financial, technological, and stra­tegic influence of foreign countries, foreign companies, INGOs posing as foundations, individuals, and intelligence organizations — they inevitably fall into life under for­eign domination.

As such, we, the people of My­anmar who once cherished democ­racy, have seen its value diminish due to the wrongdoings, missteps, and inappropriate actions of cer­tain political figures, including parties and government officials, who manipulated the democratic system. As a result, the lives of the people have also become hopeless, and they have been left to live in darkness.

Why is it called an insubstan­tial election?

In a democratic election, is it necessary to use foreign financial support which does not truly re­flect the will of the people for the benefit of one’s party? Why did the UEC and NLD obtain US$46 million from the US embassy for the 2020 election? Did the $950 million provided by the US govern­ment to the Myanmar government and NLD bring transparency and clarity to the people of Myanmar? Why were election observation groups not given the opportunity to observe? The pre-marked election envelopes, voters who cast without identity, the number of illegal votes exceeding the eligible voter count, the number of voter intimidation incidents that the public was una­ware of, the cases of voting rights being granted multiple times to the deceased or elderly over 100 years old, the election where grandpar­ents voted in place of their grand­children, election fraud videos, photos, and evidence, along with written statements from political parties and thousands of com­plaints from the people, protests and demonstrations expressing dissatisfaction with the election, etc. were not resolved, and why did they ignore them? Moreover, there were no responses to the credible evidence of election fraud published by Tatmadaw, nor any follow-up on the disputed issue of not convening the last session of the Second Pyidaungsu Hluttaw. The 2015 election records were burned, and at the time, those who claimed to abide by the law acted either in accordance with or contrary to the law. It is deeply re­gretful that the NLD government, the NLD party, and former State Counsellor Daw Aung San Suu Kyi were unaware of this.

Moreover, can the result of an election, which received foreign assistance, truly reflect the gen­uine will of the people? Or does it contain any real essence? This re­mains a question that has yet to be answered. During that period, the election campaign took place when the people of Myanmar were fully suffering from the terrible impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. Why did the government, which claims to be people-centred, deliberately disregard the public’s health? Why did they break health regulations and engage in election activities at such a fast pace? These are mat­ters that require careful thought. It is astonishing how the members of the NLD party, who claimed that they could easily and quick­ly achieve their goals, failed so miserably.

Before the 2020 election, why did they move polling booths of military units outside the relevant military units? They were foolish to oppose Tatmadaw, which is al­ways focused on national interests and the security of the State. They did not have awareness that mili­tary information could fall into the hands of the enemy.

Will the elections in the future be successful with their participa­tion? It is necessary to consider a future plan in advance so as not to fall burdens of tensions between Tatmadaw and the people. Some may have heard of IFES, the Inter­national Foundation for Electoral Systems. In some international elections, this organization pro­vides technical assistance to en­sure transparency and fairness in elections. However, this pro­gramme is just a CIA operation designed to produce results in favour of the United States. As usual, in the 2020 elections, with the assistance of IFES, there were reports of fraud, involving com­puter experts and computers to manipulate the vote.

Why did they engage in im­proper actions?

Why did they commit such inappropriate voting fraud? Sup­porters of the NLD and the party strongly denied that their party or leaders have ever committed such voting fraud. Those supporters are in such extreme pain and blind trust in the party and their leaders that they reject the truth. Others, due to circumstances where they are fully aware but are unable to accept the truth, are forced to deny it.

At that time, Tatmadaw and the Union Solidarity and Devel­opment Party (USDP) severally requested to resolve the issue that the Union Election Commission (UEC) and the National League for Democracy (NLD) committed voting fraud. Repeated requests have been made to clarify this is­sue, both internally and external­ly, and in a systematic manner. It means that the political conflict has opened a path for political negotiations to resolve the issue. There were many documents of a harsh and firm response to re­spectful requests made to prevent the country from heading toward a worse situation. It is difficult to understand, for example, when someone is repeatedly accused of being a thief, they must take full responsibility to clear their name for the sake of their dignity. If the person truly were a thief, they would either deny it or naturally show remorse. Now, why has the NLD remained silent? Their si­lence itself has reached the point of acceptance.

Was it a trap to pave the way for taking responsibility for the State?

For the people, for the country, and for the honour of their party, shouldn’t something be clarified? In another way, did the NLD keep a trap for Tatmadaw to take respon­sibility for the State compulsorily? It can only be commented that it was likely to happen. In fact, if Tat­madaw leaders had been eager to seize power, those events wouldn’t have occurred. If Tatmadaw had not taken State responsibilities, the NLD would have continued as usual, carrying on their plans step by step. If Tatmadaw assumed the State’s responsibilities, it would confront the people directly, and Tatmadaw and the people would be at odds, causing more resent­ment from the people towards Tatmadaw. Eventually, it would lead to the collapse of Tatmadaw, the disintegration of the country, and a division as per the Western group’s wishes. In reality, Tatmad­aw leaders are more aware of the consequences of seizing power and understand them better. Even though Tatmadaw didn’t want to do the work of the people and the nation, the actions of the NLD have pushed the country and the people into such a situation of se­rious setbacks.

Why did they remain silent?

There are several factors to consider as to why the NLD is re­maining silent. The situation of the NLD has gradually worsened in the by-elections, where the results were no longer favourable. There was a clear goal of achieving full victory for the NLD party in the elections. However, to meet this goal, there was a need to strength­en commitments in the security laws that had already been an­nulled in pursuance to the Western bloc and OIC. The NLD also failed to amend the Constitution during its term but aims to do so in the future. Moreover, these factors have led to the conclusion that the NLD’s actions were driven by the intention to weaken the strength of Tatmadaw. For this reason, they have repeatedly crafted narratives to manipulate public perception and to create instigation between the people and Tatmadaw, facili­tated by powerful lobbying forces.

Hluttaw representatives wasted time they, instead of ask­ing questions and making sugges­tions for the benefit of the people and enacting necessary laws at the Hluttaw, spent time opposing constitutional amendments for the benefit of their party and following the Western bloc’s influence, which would have made it impossible to proceed. However, Tatmadaw and the opposition Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP) had initially resisted the constitu­tional amendments for national interests. So, the NLD was able to create a misleading narrative for the public to misunderstand Tatmadaw and the USDP, allowing the NLD’s desires to be fulfilled. It should be noted that as the election approached, the NLD’s efforts to push for constitutional amendments were carried out on a clear agenda, and this should be reflected upon critically.

No matter what happens, in this current period and under today’s circumstances, the re­sponsibility for the suffering the people of Myanmar are facing, along with the political situation, lies with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, the NLD party, and the UEC of that time. The reason is that the failure to hold free, fair, and transparent elections destroyed both democra­cy and the essence of elections. It also resulted from an inability to adopt good intentions and princi­ples that could create a balanced political environment and a lack of the necessary skills for negotiation and compromise. Only through good negotiation skills can the truth be achieved, and through that, we believe, the outcome in the Hluttaw would reflect the will of the people rather than a mere decision.

Based on experiences, how can the people of Myanmar trust such parties and politicians in the future when they have act­ed in such a manner? Do these parties and politicians have the ability to create a fair and just po­litical landscape? Do they possess the qualifications to implement democratic practices that align with the character and values of the Myanmar people? They have made significant mistakes. The consequences of their mistakes are being borne by us. What is crucial is the trust of the people, and that trust cannot be violated or taken for granted. It is impor­tant that they have to be honest and righteous without committing similar incidents any more.

(TO BE CONTINUED)