Although the election laws do not explicitly allow for election observation, the UEC has invited and accredited over 11, observers from 52 CSOs and over 1, international observers for the general election.
While this is a high level of interest and participation, the level is however lower in local elections due to unclear legal provisions and the possibility of unsecure situations while undertaking observation on the ground. A few CSOs, which mostly come from the perspective of challenging the management of the electoral system by a military-backed ministry, have been active in advocating for amendments to parts of the law, while other CSOs have been engaged in raising awareness of the law and voter education at the grassroots level.
It has worked to mobilise the public and has advocated towards both houses of parliament for legislative reform. The coalition convened a workshop of 30 CSOs from six regions and four states to analyse the law and proposed a series of specific recommendations, of which 10 priority recommendations on amendments to the Ward or Village Tract Administration Law were agreed. A public hearing at the lower house of parliament followed this, at which three representatives of the coalition presented the 10 priority points, which had been endorsed by 75 Myanmarese CSOs.
The removal of the overnight guest registration requirement was important because in the past this was used by the military as a tool to control the freedom of movement and conduct surveillance on political activists. In addition, due to unclear procedures, there remains a high potential for election disputes and confusion.
Thus, problems remain and civil society actors will continue to monitor the performance of elected administrators, conduct voter education, report on public opinion polls and advocate for policy and legislative change.
The GAD still has disproportionate influence over the elected officials of wards and village tracts. For example, the ultimate authority on the formation of the supervisory board that oversees the election of ward and village tract administrators is the township administrator, who is unelected and appointed directly by the GAD.
Also, within the Ward or Village Tract Administration Law there is the existence of the GAD-appointed ward or village clerk, whose position is unelected, permanent and influential. Thus, ward or village tract administrators are accountable not to the people, but upwards to township administrators and ultimately, to the military.
The mooted Township Administration Law, [3] which is still in draft form, will only cement the powerful position of the military in the GAD, and thereby in local level governance and administration.
Even if the Township Administration Law - when eventually passed - changes the position of township administrator from an appointed to an elected one, the ultimate authority will remain with the military via the GAD and the MoHA. It would rather be in accordance with democratic norms if the responsibilities of the ward and village tract elections were transferred from the GAD to an independent election body, and the mandate for and management of ward and village tract administrators were transferred to administrative bodies under civilian control.
Regarding the elections, there are also problems concerning inclusivity, especially for women and young people. In order for a culture of democracy to take root at the local level, young people must be encouraged to participate.
Voting is also still based on heads of households rather than all adults residing in each household. While this in itself is exclusionary, the prevalence of male heads of households means that there are major problems regarding the participation of women in this process. This law is also significant for the aspirations of ethnic minorities. Of course, change must come as part of broader reforms of the GAD, which should move towards the decentralising of administration, including elections of local officials, to help devolve power to ethnic groups that have been striving for autonomy and self-determination for decades.
Yet there is hope and optimism. While the military continues to hold power and assert its dominance over the administration structures that affect the daily lives of the people in Myanmar, these civil society activities can be supported by the government and members of parliament to push forward meaningful reforms that lead to a more genuine and inclusive federal democracy.
From to , Myanmar was governed as a British colony. This country gained its freedom after World War II in , became a democracy, and established its first post-colonial Constitution. This Constitution refused civil rights to people from ethnic minority groups. The US and several European countries enacted economic sanctions and boycotts against the military government, resulting in the closure of several western-owned businesses located here.
In response to these boycotts and sanctions, the military government of Burma agreed to political reform, permitting various political parties to run as public candidates in the and elections. On May 10, , this country held its first national election since , voting to approve the new Constitution. The parliamentary elections were won by the Union Solidarity and Development Party, supported by the military.
Although many people believe these elections were fraudulent. In , the National League for Democracy won the majority vote for both houses of Parliament, moving the country away from military-based rule. The legislative branch of the government is divided between the national level and the local and regional levels. At the national level, the legislative branch is carried out by the Assembly of the Union like Parliament , which is divided into two houses: the House of Nationalities and the House of Representatives.
Which raises the question why did it seize power now - and more to the point, what happens next? The exact timing is easily explained, as the BBC's South East Asia correspondent Jonathan Head points out: Monday morning should have been the first session of parliament, which in turn would have enshrined the result.
This now won't happen. The military-backed opposition immediately began making accusations of fraud after the vote. The allegation was repeated in a signed statement released by the newly-instated acting president to justify the imposition of the year-long state of emergency.
But there has been little evidence to support the allegation. It is somewhat Trumpian - all these allegations of fraud with no evidence. Even so, Mr Robertson describes the takeover as "inexplicable".
The answer is no. November's vote may have seen the military-backed Union Solidarity and Development Party USDP win a fraction of the vote, but the military still holds massive sway over the government thanks to a controversial constitution drawn up during junta rule.
It not only gives the military a quarter of parliamentary seats automatically, but also hands it control of three key ministries - home affairs, defence and border affairs.
So, as long as the constitution remains the same, the military retains some control. But could the NLD, with its majority, have amended the constitution?
Aye Min Thant, a former journalist, suggests there may be another reason for today's action: embarrassment on the part of the military.
0コメント