Rangoon (Mizzima) – Upon arrival in Burma’s former capital three days before the election, the number of campaign trucks roaming the streets playing loud music on old speakers was striking, as were the campaigners from various parties distributing leaflets to attract people’s attention.
The onslaught of political activity was later revealed as a last-ditch effort to push for votes. None were more vocal than the opposition parties who had been severely hindered in their campaigns by the State Peace and Development Council (or SPDC, the ruling junta’s name for itself). One campaigner rallying people to vote was Kaung Myint Htut, encountered just two days before the election on the streets of South Okkalapa Township, a poor ward in Rangoon. The former political prisoner and activist from the 88 Students Generation movement, originally spearheaded the Myanmar Democracy Congress towards the 2010 elections, until the junta’s Union Election Commission (UEC) dissolved the party in September for its failure to register party candidates before a highly restrictive deadline.
After the dissolution, Kaung Myint Htut decided to contest as an independent, facing the uphill battle of campaigning against the heavily SPDC-backed Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP) candidate, Rangoon Mayor Aung Thein Lin. Though limited in money and resources, he continued to take an active part in elections to prove to the populace that someone can speak out against the junta without being afraid of the consequences.
His hopeful outlook towards the elections was a far cry from the other perspectives encountered in the run-up to the elections as touring with him around South Okkalapa Township, many constituents gave a range of views about the November 7 elections. Many had very little knowledge of the electoral process and even less about the candidates running in their constituency. The general lack of public awareness can be attributed to the restrictive rules stipulated by the UEC and the controversial 2008 constitution. The stifled political climate, which has hampered access to information, is reflected in the extent to which people on the streets were ill-informed, openly admitting to ignorance regarding the candidates standing in their constituency or their political platforms.
On the eve of the election, Su Su, a member of the administrative staff at a private school, said candidly: “We don’t know whose running, we don’t know their programme. We will only decide at the last moment.” She added that the credo in Rangoon was: “It does not matter who you vote for as long as it is not the USDP.”
After numerous discussions with constituents in Rangoon, the apparent importance of the political party logo became evident. Because of the general lack of awareness on party issues, for many voters the party logo held more importance than the party message in capturing their attention. One young man on election day revealed that he had not voted yet, but wanted to vote for the “hat”. The use of the “hat” logo by the National Democratic Front (NDF) was the cause of a considerable controversy, as it had been used since elections in 1990 by the party the NDF broke from to contest in the elections – Aung San Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy. It symbolises the traditional bamboo hat worn by peasants. Others reported that they would only make their choice once in the polling booth, and also according to party logos.
The lack of interest or awareness of the Burmese people, left a lingering question of why people are still going to vote. Usually when the electorate is uninterested in the political process they simply abstain. However, the context of Burma is different, as the country is tightly ruled by a military regime and shrouded in a “state of fear”. The use of coercion has forced many unwilling participants into the polling booths for fear of reprisal by the junta. Win, the owner of a beauty salon in the Mingalar Taungnyunt Township, disclosed she voted for the USDP only because her husband voted for the NDF and “I didn’t want my family to get into trouble,” she explained. Similarly, a truck driver who had not voted yet said: “I need to go to my constituency to vote because I am afraid my ballot might be filled in by some unscrupulous person,” he said.
The only person who openly confessed to boycotting the elections was a seller of ethnic jewellery at the well known Aung San Market. When asked if he was going to vote the next day, he looked around suspiciously before making a cross with his two fingers – the symbol of the boycott campaign.
By election eve, the atmosphere radically shifted in Rangoon. Street shops closed earlier than usual and tea shops, which usually serve as a hang-out for many Burmese, were sparsely patronised. I woke up very early on Sunday morning, excited to “feel” Rangoon on a election day, but, aside from a few undercover foreign journalists disguised as tourists, the city was desolate. The shops remained closed, few people and cars were out in the streets, and police were patrolling in trucks to discourage any attempt to demonstrate. The rumours of bomb blasts further served to keep people at home.
The voters who braved this bizarre atmosphere came to the polling station in a desultory way. The stations were easy to find, with Burma’s brand-new national flag in the front. Many polling stations were without people waiting a considerably long time to cast their ballot. As voters entered stations, officials stood casually in front, with police standing guard.
Once polls closed, state-run television repeatedly broadcasted footage of high-ranking generals casting their ballot. Though the media spin of election-day events was unsurprising, the uninterrupted electricity that allowed for continuous coverage was astounding. Anyone who has travelled to Burma before is familiar with the daily power outages, surprisingly, throughout election weekend, there was 24-hour supply.
Electricity was interrupted only once, on Sunday evening between 6 p.m. and 8 p.m., when polling station’s were closing and the vote-counting had started. Perhaps it was only a coincidence, but as many cases of fraud were reported after the elections, one can raise the argument it was a deliberate order from the junta so it could operate in the dark, literally.
