Early November, Myanmar seized the world headlines when the saffron monks were back on the streets  just as in the 1980s. But they were not demonstrating against the regime. Rather, they were rejoicing the change following the November 8 democratic elections. The Burmese revelry spilled out on the Myanmar streets as soon as votes began to be counted. The opposition party, National League for Democracy (NLD), led by Aung Saan Suu Kyi secured a thumping victory against the ruling Union Solidarity Development Party (USDP) with an astronomical margin.

The NLD has secured 78.9 percent of 323 elected seats in the Lower House and 80.4 percent of 168 seats in the Upper House. The state assemblies reflected similar results, echoing the party’s ferocious victory in 1990. But then, the military had rejected the NLD victory and put Suu Kyi under house arrest. This time around, the military and the main ruling party have already recognised Suu Kyi’s seamless victory in the elections.

Historic election

To everyone’s astonishment, the Union Election Commission (UEC), headed by a military general, has won the hearts and minds of all the Burmese for the relatively better-held elections. Apart from few incidents, no major violence was observed, and the elections were conducted in a free and fair manner. There were particular concerns about the out-of-constituency advance voting and military votes where observers had a very limited access to the voting process. This raised serious questions about the legitimacy of these votes. Doubts were raised when nearly 98 percent of these votes were found to be in favour of the USDP. A systematic reform process including non-restrictive electioneering, judicial review of UEC activities and open and transparent election dispute resolutions are needed for a more democratic and accountable elections in Myanmar. Likewise, the new government should develop a transparent and inclusive mechanism of selecting the election commissioners, and secure the voting rights of all Burmese citizens.  

However, round-the-clock vigilance by NLD cadres at every polling station and the remarkable professionalism displayed by the UEC; particularly by female election officers was praiseworthy. Most election officers at the booths were local school teachers and females constituted about 70 percent of them. The election officers

possessed excellent knowledge about election procedure and they were extremely cooperative with the voters and observers.

Constitution and conflicts

Following the ignominious electoral defeat of the USDP, the Burmese and democrats around the world have been cogitating over what the electoral verdict means to the military, which had focused all its efforts on creating the USDP in the past. However, the military does not seem to be significantly worried with the USDP’s defeat as it has secured its position in Myanmar’s politics through the present constitution. The 2008 constitution of Myanmar has reserved 25 percent seats for the military, and they are directly nominated by the Commander in Chief of the Army in the national and state parliaments. Similarly, the constitution has barred any Burmese national from assuming the post of the president in case s/he is married to a foreign national or if any member of the candidate’s family holds a foreign passport. These provisions were apparently introduced to purportedly prevent Suu Kyi, whose late husband was a Briton, from becoming the President of Myanmar. Similarly, the constitution has reserved key and powerful ministries, including the home, defense, and border security for the military.

Such provisions have constitutionally strengthened the military in Myanmar and made it an indispensable force. Therefore, Suu Kyi and her party, despite the landslide victory, are obligated to work with the military towards a full democracy. However, she may not be able to amend the current constitution without military support as she needs to secure more than 75 percent votes in Parliament to do so.

Another major problem is that Suu Kyi is poised to handle is the decade-long armed and other ethnic conflicts in Myanmar. The NLD has not recognised the recent nationwide peace process, signed with half of such groups, and Suu Kyi has been rejecting the government’s call to participate in the peace talks. Many ethnic groups, who joined the November elections, were severely decimated. While the parties to the peace process—both the ruling party (USDP) and the ethnic parties—have been reduced to an insignificant force in Myanmar politics, it remains to be seen how the NLD will take up the ongoing peace process. The resumption of violence by many armed ethnic groups is a possibility and recent incidents of sporadic violence in bordering states, including in Kachin, show signs of such challenges. The world is also keenly watching Suu Kyi’s position on Rohingyas—Myanmar’s Muslim minority. Until now, she has consciously refrained from making any remarks on the Rohingyas. But she has to deal with the issue as soon as the NLD assumes power on April 1, 2016. She may not necessarily require military support if she reaches a compromise with the ethnic communities. However, the deal may potentially cost her political capital from within the NLD. In any case, it will be difficult for the Nobel laureate to defend her image as an iconic democratic leader if she cannot bring the marginalised ethnic communities on board to create an inclusive, democratic Myanmar.

Lessons for Nepal

Nepal, which has been battling hard to manage its relations with her two giant neighbours, can learn a lesson or two from Myanmar which has been successful in maintaining good ties with its five neighbours—China, India, Bangladesh, Laos and Thailand. Myanmar also has an additional challenge of managing growing Western interests in the region. To accommodate the minorities, Myanmar constitution also has a provision  to directly elect ethnic ministers in the state Parliament for each ethnic community which constitutes at least 0.1 percent of the population in the state. As the issue of representation lies at the heart of the political crisis facing Nepal, it can learn from Myanmar. Likewise, the discipline and respect for the law of the land demonstrated by the Burmese is praiseworthy. During elections, political parties in Myanmar reiterated their commitment to free and peaceful election by honestly adhering to the electoral code of conduct and maintaining highest level of ethical standards. Some of the electoral practices, including immediate and spot counting after advance voting and decentralised election management system can be the noteworthy lessons for Nepal.

The Burmese seem to hold high expections  from the new democratic regime of Myanmar, just as Nepalis did after the restoration of democracy in 1990. Myanmar could learn from Nepal’s experince on how quickly public euphoria can turn into mass frustration if the democratic regime fails to abide by the rule of law and good governance. Suu Kyi’s success hinges on how sucessfully she can demonstrate her democratic integrity by sincerely reaching out to other political parties and ethnic groups and in handling her supporters’ disdainfulness over the electoral majority in the near future.

Pokharel and Ojha observed the Myanmar parliamentary elections on behalf of the Carter Center