Votes for sale a familiar refrain in Myanmar

Myanmar goes to the polls on Sunday under a cloud of unsettling allegations of vote-buying by both the military-backed ruling Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP) and the opposition National League for Democracy (NLD), though the charges against the latter have proved more difficult to pin down.

Such corrupt practices utterly contradict claims that this general election will be regarded as Myanmar’s freest and fairest in decades.

The People’s Alliance for Credible Elections (Pace), a coalition of local non-governmental organisations observing the preparations, has named the USDP as the chief culprit in buying votes and distributing money, food and other gifts among voters at campaign rallies. 

These are nothing more than bribes, handed out at 15 per cent of the rallies monitored by Pace in exchange for support at the ballot box. Government figures were seen giving away TV satellite dishes, among other items. 

The watchdog group has pointed out that such practices violate both formal regulations and an informal code of conduct for campaigns, yet a member of Myanmar’s Union Election Commission has said his agency has received no complaints in this regard.

Opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi has adopted an opportunistic laissez-faire attitude. She advises voters to “take anything they want” from the pro-military candidates as long as they vote for her NLD. “We don’t want to buy votes,” she said at a rally last month. “We cannot provide sacks of rice or solar panels or chickens or cash to people, but this is not how we want to gain the people’s support. We want people who believe in the NLD to vote for us.”

It’s a familiar refrain to Thai ears. Voters here too have long taken advantage of the illegal political largesse at election time, accepting cash gifts from one party and then disregarding them to vote for another. Oddly, such disloyalty causes umbrage among a segment of the electorate. To accept gifts from one party and then vote for another is dishonest, they seem to be saying. Buying votes might be reprehensible, but there should be a campaign equivalent to “honour among thieves”.

Canvassers deserve part of the dubious credit when the purchasing of votes succeeds. They’ve managed to instil the belief that it would be sinful to vote against the candidate who gave them money. Thus, vote-buying remains common in both local and national elections.

The situation in Myanmar lacks the sophistication Thailand has achieved, with votes bought en masse via ATM transfers, but the effect is just the same: the will of the majority becomes distorted as the mandate to rule goes to the highest bidder. It’s an affront to democracy and social order that hampers developing countries around the world where politicians can easily take advantage of economic inequity. 

Such countries, including Thailand, cannot progress without a strong, independent and efficient election authority willing and able to catch the cheaters, and a more enlightened populace that refuses to attach a monetary value to its votes.

If the coming weekend’s election in Myanmar cannot be fully free and fair, we hope that the outcome at least reflects the voters’ genuine wishes. One day, Thailand and its western neighbour will be able to choose candidates free of dishonest and immoral influence, and democracy will be unhindered by intimidation, fraud and dirty tricks.