Post-election Myanmar: hope for continuity and change

Good reform policies on economic and politics initiated by the outgoing government would be retained. New ideas for a better Myanmar by the opposition would also fit nicely into the formula.

Discussions and random interviews with commoners in the capital city two days prior to yesterday’s polls revealed a wide array of hopes and fears – from one pendulum swing to another.

Generally speaking, deep down, the people of Myanmar are full of anxiety and fears for the future. They all know the past was really bad. However, looking ahead, the post-election situation and the outcome could easily rear an ugly head again – if key players put their ambitions and interests ahead of the country. A few hoped that the election would unite not divide Myanmar. Thailand’s political development was mentioned repeatedly as something they wanted to avoid.

Judging from Suu Kyi’s vigorous political campaigns in the past 60 days since September 8, which ended with her combative 90-minute press conference last Thursday, one could conjure up possibilities in which her party, the National League of Democracy (NLD), would win a bigger portion of votes – while Thein Sein’s ruling party, Union Solidarity and Development Party (UNDP), could score fewer votes than in the 2010 election. The NLD’s victory in 1990 and during the by-election in April 2011 were its best results. This time, the atmosphere is completely different. The voters can vote for their choices under the watchful eyes of regional and international observers.

During the past four years, Myanmar has opened up, revealing the country’s mammoth problems and challenges, especially those related to race and religion. 

“It is time for change, vote NLD for genuine change,” has been the opposition’s key message. Repeated calls for more political reforms — along with Suu Kyi’s international stature as a Nobel laureate – have miraculously connected her to the voters, especially the young voters, who have been mesmerised by her political brinkmanship.

The ruling USDP has its first run for five years and now asks for a new mandate. In his official speech on the election publicised widely in the government-run newspapers, President Thein Sein said the country needed him to continue the ongoing reforms, including building up “a new political system and new political culture.” He admitted the government encountered “many difficulties” and had to find answers to these challenges. He even evoked the importance of people-centered policies and approaches in service and other areas as new challenges.

While Thein Sein’s messages were focused on continuity, other government organs and officials were propagating their calls for protection of race and religion, arousing deep-rooted nationalism and generated religious intolerance. The role of Ma Ba Tha, a hardline Buddhist organisation, which has hundreds of branches and millions of members throughout the country, has created fear among the voters by inciting an anti-Muslim campaign.

Thanks to a privately-owned media community, such strong discriminatory messages with racist remarks and images, were not sensationalised. There have been some complaints about reporting that has not reflected the country’s race and religious fault lines. In contrast, the state-owned media establishments – both traditional and new media – have been supporting the USDP and government-related activities.

According to a media survey conducted by the Myanmar Institute for Democracy, the private media, both print and electronic, were more balanced in their reporting on the election throughout. Obviously, private media with government connections has been more supportive of the USDP. Another monthly survey by Mizzima Media Group of key private vernacular and English language media showed their heavy coverage of Suu Kyi’s messages on further reforms and constitutional changes. The October 19 nation-wide ceasefire agreement could not eclipse her campaign’s messages in news reporting. 

By today, the election winner will be known but the official tally would come later in two weeks. At least three possibilities based on the post-election political architecture could be contemplated, depending on the choice of the estimated 32 million voters with 93 contesting political parties including ethnic political parties. The focus is between the NLD and USDP. Sad but true, there are over 6,000 candidates, only 28 Muslim candidates.

The first possibility would be an NLD decisive victory with a majority, minus the 25 per cent quota held by the Tamatdaw [Myanmar military]. This outcome would put Suu Kyi in the supreme position to decide the body politic in Myanmar for years to come – something to which she has aspired. 

At Thursday’s press conference, she said that if her party wins, she will take a post “above the president” – whatever that means. Suu Kyi has been consistent throughout the month-long campaign last week that the NLD would talk to and work with everyone – all stakeholders – for the sake of national reconciliation. That is good evidence of her political pragmatism.

If that is the pathway, her victory would not polarise the country’s political future, which is still dominated by the Tamatdaw. She certainly would have to discuss the setting up of a new government with the military in ways that would not attract retaliation from them. This is easier said than done.

To ensure a smooth transition from the Thein Sein government to one belonging to the opposition, overall security interests of Myanmar’s military both individually and institutionally must be taken into consideration.

Army Commander in Chief General Ming Aung Hlaing repeatedly said the military would respect the will of the people and electoral outcome. However, it is safe to say that some kind of agreement between the NLD and Tatadaw would be in the offing if the NLD wanted to set up a new government. After all her father, General Aung San, founded Myanmar’s armed forces. She has also often mentioned the veteran, U Tin Oo, a former general and commander in chief, as an example of her connection with Tatmadaw.

Throughout the political campaign, Suu Kyi has maintained neutral voices and tones about the role of the military in the country, knowing full well the importance of its role in society and eventual engagement. Suu Kyi’s realistic political view of her country, follow her on and off nearly 14 years in detention. Her stint as an elected MP since April 2012 has shown that she understood the nature of Myanmar politics well.

The second possibility still has to do with the NLD as the winner – but with a strong demand. In this case, Suu Kyi continues to press for constitutional amendments to secure the presidency, which bans her ascendancy as enshrined in the 2008 constitution. Her latest remark on her future political role as above the president has upset the Tatmadaw and drew heavy criticism from USDP leaders.

If she pursues this aim, the country’s post-election political scene would certainly be quite rocky and could easily sink into crisis as she would face serious objections from the military. The post-election process would become problematic, including the official counting and verification of votes. She should learn fresh lessons from her failed attempts to amend the constitution for the past three years – and Indonesia’s democratic transitions which witnessed the gradual erosion of military role in politics.

All said, it would be wise for her to stick with the present charter for the time being – unfair as it may be. Under the 2008 constitutional framework, the military would be willing to wait and give the NLD a chance. They know they have the power to mess things up if Suu Kyi resists and decides to move toward constitutional amendments during her administration. Numerous state-sponsored organisations and movements, both covert and overt, can easily be mobilised to bring the country into political deadlock.

The third possibility would require the magic number of seats won by the NLD and USDP out of 498 available, with 116 booked for the Tatmadaw.

The USDP has to win just 26 per cent to form a government. In the case of the NLD, it has to be 67 per cent. This would allow the two key partners to form a national coalition government with assistance from ethnic parties. Of course, this would be an ideal government. However, it remains to be seen if the Myanmar politicians would be able to overcome their political differences.

Again, judging from the parliamentary experience of the NLD and UNDP, there could be such a possibility. This formula would be ideal for the post-election Myanmar, which would be able to simultaneously pursue continuity and changes advocated by both parties. The Thein Sein government, with a reduced majority, would enable the opposition party’s winners to take up new positions, putting forward its visions.

It is also hopeful that the mutual trust between Thein Sein and Suu Kyi would make a return. It was an open secret that their relations had deteriorated following the lifting of sanctions by the West against Myanmar, which was helped by Suu Kyi. When some of the promises by Thein Sein for further reforms and constitutional-related matters were not kept, she adopted a tougher position against the ruling party. That helped explain why Suu Kyi and the House speaker, Thura Shwe Mann, tried jointly to move forward political reforms but without much progress.

To form a government of national unity, both Thein Sein and Suu Kyi must reach a good understanding of their respective roles in the new political environment. The choice of president and two vice presidents will also demonstrate their rapport and political pragmatism.