Looking Back to the History of Elections in the Union

Although the Union of Burma came into existence on January 4, 1948, this state was largely built upon the institutional foundations, worldviews, and bodies of knowledge left behind by (and resulted from institutions of) the British and the Japanese.


Throughout Myanmar's political history, elections have served a dual purpose: they have been a tool for those seeking power to legitimize their authority, while simultaneously functioning as a battleground where the public demanded the right to determine their own future.

Counting from the early colonial period in 1922 to the election the military council (SAC) is preparing for in 2025, there have been 17 general elections in Myanmar. However, whether these elections have truly managed to escape the "Colonial Matrix of Power" remains a question to be examined through the lens of decoloniality.


1. Early Colonial Elections (1922 - 1936)

The British colonial government first brought elections to Myanmar in 1922. The elections in 1922, 1925, 1928, 1932, and 1936 were not meant to teach democracy. Instead, they worked as an "Administrative Tool." Their purpose was to keep the colonial system operating.

The Britishers created "Communal Representation." This meant they made separate voting groups for Karens, Indians, Europeans, and business interests. This made the "Divide and Rule" strategy part of the law. This strategy was very important for colonial control. But it is important to note the following too. Some British officials truly believed this was the correct method. Reports from the Whyte and Simon Commissions explain this. The British were hesitant at first. But they used communal representation for practical reasons. They wanted to balance the power of the Bamar majority. They wanted to keep the economy stable. They also had a paternalistic idea and wanted to stop ethnic minority voices from being ignored. They wanted to keep the administration working.


2. Independence and Nation-Building (1947 - 1960)

The 1947 Constituent Assembly election was a major effort to break free from colonial status, yet it proceeded within the parliamentary democracy framework laid down by the British. While the elections of 1951-52, 1956, and 1960 could be said to reflect the essence of an independent nation, the "Centralized Bureaucracy" remained as potent as it had been during the colonial era.


3. One-Party Dictatorship and Ritualistic Elections (1974 - 1985)

Following the military coup in 1962, the regime proclaimed anti-colonial and socialist ideologies. In practice, however, the country was ruled by the 'Revolutionary Council' and the Chairman of the 'Burma Socialist Programme Party (BSPP)', who wielded absolute power akin to a colonial Governor. The elections of 1974, 1978, 1981, and 1985 were not vehicles for expressing public will, but rather mere "rituals" performed to constitutionally legitimize the dictatorship.


4. The Contest between Military Bureaucracy and Democracy (1990 - 2020)

The 1990 and 2020 elections are the most important moments in Myanmar's political history. In both cases, the public clearly said no to military control through their votes. But the military completely ignored the 1990 results. They also canceled the 2020 results. They used the reason of "voter fraud."


Looking at this from an "Institutional Critique" view shows a problem. Organizations like the Union Election Commission (UEC) are not independent. They are "Political Apparatuses." Those in power control them completely. Also, the 2008 constitution says the military chooses 25% of parliament members. This happened in the 2010 and 2015 elections. This is basically the return of an old colonial practice. In the past, the Governor appointed lawmakers. Now, this practice returns as "Internal Colonization."


5. Current Situation and Outlook for 2025

The military council is now preparing an election for 2025. One change is very important. They plan to stop using the "First-Past-The-Post (FPTP)" system. They want to use a " Mixed-Member Proportional (MMP)” instead. They have also made the rules for registering political parties stricter.


Viewing this through the lens of history just as the British manipulated electoral districts to divide ethnic groups and the Bamar during the colonial era, the military council's current actions can be seen as "Electoral Engineering." This is designed to prevent large parties with public support from gaining power while allowing smaller, proxy parties to survive.


Myanmar's electoral history has never been simply about "voting." It has always been a historical struggle between the "institutional structures" built by the ruling class to perpetuate their power and the peoples' longing for freedom.


Elections within the Union

1. Colonial Era (Diarchy and 91-Department Administration)

These were elections introduced by the British with numerous restrictions.

  • 1922: First Diarchy Legislative Council Election. (Boycotted by the GCBA, but the 21 Party won).
  • 1925: Second Diarchy Election. (The Nationalist Party won the most votes but could not form a government; the Golden Valley Party formed the government).
  • 1928: Third Diarchy Election. (The People's Party won).
  • 1932: Fourth Diarchy Election. (Contested primarily on the issue of Separation vs. Federation with India).
  • 1936: General Election under the 91-Department Administration. (The Five-Flower Alliance won; Dr. Ba Maw formed a coalition government).


2. Post-Independence Era (Parliamentary Democracy)

A period dominated by the Anti-Fascist People's Freedom League (AFPFL) government.

  • 1947: Constituent Assembly Election. (AFPFL won a landslide victory; held to draft the constitution for independence).
  • 1951-1952: First Parliamentary General Election. (Held in stages over more than a year due to civil war; AFPFL won).
  • 1956: Second Parliamentary General Election. (AFPFL won, but the opposition NUF gained significant votes).
  • 1960: Third Parliamentary General Election. (Held by the Caretaker Government; the Clean AFPFL (Union Party/Pa-Hta-Sa) won).


3. BSPP Era (One-Party Dictatorship)

Elections where only the Burma Socialist Programme Party was allowed to compete.

  • 1974: First People's Assembly Election.
  • 1978: Second People's Assembly Election.
  • 1981: Third People's Assembly Election.
  • 1985: Fourth People's Assembly Election.


4. Military Government and Transition Period

  • 1990: Multi-Party Democracy General Election. (NLD won a landslide victory, but the military government refused to recognize the results and annulled them).
  • 2010: Multi-Party Democracy General Election. (Held under the 2008 Constitution; NLD boycotted; USDP won).
  • 2012: By-election. (NLD contested and won 43 out of 44 seats).


5. Quasi-Civilian Government Terms

  • 2015: Multi-Party Democracy General Election. (NLD won a landslide victory and was able to form a government).
  • 2017: By-election. (Out of 19 seats, NLD won 9, Ethnic parties won 8).
  • 2018: By-election. (Out of 13 seats, NLD won 7, USDP won 3, Ethnic parties won 3).
  • 2020: Multi-Party Democracy General Election. (NLD won another landslide victory; the military seized power in 2021 citing voter list errors and annulled the results).


6. Military Council Era (Under Preparation)

  • 2025-2026 (Projected): An election being prepared by the coup military council. (Planned to switch to the PR system and be held in stages).


Electoral Systems in Burma

1. Communal Representation

  • Period: Colonial Era (Elections from 1922 to 1936).
  • Format: Constituencies were defined not only geographically but also by race/ethnicity and occupation.
  • Application: In addition to "General Constituencies," separate seats were reserved for specific groups such as Karens, Indians, Europeans, and Anglo-Burmans. Furthermore, separate seats existed for entities like the Chambers of Commerce and the University. Only members of those respective groups/associations could vote for those seats.
  • Note: This is not a PR system. Although some may mistakenly write it as such, it is a distinct system.


2. First-Past-The-Post (FPTP)

  • Period: Post-Independence Era (1947) to the 2020 Election (excluding the BSPP era).
  • Format: Also known as "Winner-Takes-All."
  • Application: Only one candidate is elected per constituency. The candidate with the highest number of votes among the competitors wins. (For example, a candidate does not need over 50% of the votes; winning by just one vote more than the rival is sufficient).
  • Pros/Cons: Makes it easier to form a government but makes it difficult for minority parties and parties where the vote is split to gain seats.


3. Proportional Representation (PR)

  • Period: Partially used for electing the Senate under the 1935 Act, but primarily the system the military council is preparing to use for the 2025 election.
  • Format: A system where legislative seats are allocated according to the percentage of votes a party receives.
  • Application (For 2025): Multiple candidates will be elected per constituency, rather than just one. Seats will be distributed based on the percentage of votes the party receives. (The intention is to reduce the likelihood of a single large party winning a landslide victory).


4. Mixed-Member Proportional (MMP)

  • Period: Projected for the 2025 election.
  • Format: A combination of FPTP and PR systems.
  • Application:
  • Pyithu Hluttaw (Lower House): Will be held using the FPTP system exclusively.
  • Amyotha Hluttaw (Upper House) and Region/State Parliaments: Will use a mix of FPTP and PR. (For example, township representatives may be elected via FPTP, while remaining representatives are aggregated by district and elected via PR).


Appointment System (Not an electoral method, but relevant)

  • Colonial Era: Some seats in the Legislative Council were directly appointed by the Governor. Initially, figures like Kinwun Mingyi U Kaung were among those appointed.
  • 2008 Constitution Era: 25% of the seats in all parliaments are directly appointed by the Commander-in-Chief of the Defense Services without having to contest an election. (This applies to the 2010, 2015, 2020, and the upcoming 2025 elections).


Concise Description of Our Stance

While a large part of international community almost simply views the election being prepared by the Myanmar military as a contest between "dictatorship and democracy," for the people of Myanmar, this ritualistic situation is fraught with complicated questions such as "Should we participate?" or "Is this a trap to perpetuate power?" In reality, Myanmar's political crisis is not caused by any specific military coup or general, but is a deeper problem rooted in the fact that the foundational structure of the "State" itself is broken.


A Crisis Deeper Than the Military

Throughout Myanmar's political history, no government (whether military or civilian) has been able to establish a State that is truly responsible and accountable to the people. Political forces have sought to inherit legitimacy while evading accountability. All political competitions in Myanmar are fundamentally problems of "factionalism" rooted in state sovereignty and the inability to share and exercise power. Look at the past.

·      AFPFL VS the Communists,

·      BSPP VS the CPB

·      SLORC/SPDC VS NCGUB and alliances

·      NLD versus USDP

·      Today SAC VS the NUG,

The central dynamic has always been a split down the middle with both sides trying to pull peripheral groups into their orbit. The political culture has prioritized loyalty over scrutiny, and "one voice, one command" unity over negotiation.


The Meaninglessness of Unaccountable Elections

In theory, elections are democratic, but under a system lacking an independent judiciary and checks and balances on power, voting is merely "theater." Even the elections of 2010, 2015, and 2020 were marred by structural inequalities and the exclusion of indigenous nations and marginalized groups, while civilian governments themselves ignored the voices of minorities. Therefore, unless the foundational pillars of the State are reformed, the election held by the military will be nothing more than an act reducing legitimacy to mere statistics.


Bad Binary - Military Vs. Democracy

We must think beyond the binary concept of "military dictatorship VS democracy." Reducing democracy narrowly to ballot boxes risks inviting problems like "Tyranny of the Majority." The crucial question is not "Who governs?" but "How do we hold the government and elites accountable?" Merely transferring power from uniforms to pin-ni (civilian attire) will not change the country. The very mechanism of how power operates needs to change.


Federalism and the Right to Sue

The only exit strategy for Myanmar is building a "Accountable Multinational Federal Union." This federal system must not only share power but also enable Union and State governments to sue each other and enforce accountability. Furthermore, there must be a "Right to Recall" to remove representatives if they fail in their duties. This serves as a reminder that power is not a possession but a temporarily borrowed responsibility.


This is what we mean...

Opposing the upcoming election in its current form is not a rejection of democracy, but a demand for a "Deeper Democracy." What the country desires is not justice measured by numbers or superficial peace. It is a stance demanding the construction of a new Union built on judicial integrity, equality of nations, and mutual respect. It is the one that is accountable to all groups of people.