The military junta in Burma (Myanmar) is conducting its first election following the coup that toppled the elected government in January 2021. This election marks a continuation of military dominance, with the Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP) leading despite major opposition parties being excluded. Critics contend that this election serves not as a celebration of democracy, but rather as a means to legitimize ongoing military rule.
The election commenced on December 28, 2025, and is structured as a three-phase process, impeded by violence and unrest in the country. Voting was canceled in 65 of the 330 townships, signifying the extent of the ongoing conflict and prompting concerns about the legitimacy of the electoral framework imposed by the junta. A senior official from the USDP stated that the party has claimed victories in a majority of the contested seats—a development seen by many as a preordained outcome.
Opposition groups and numerous citizens assert that the electoral process is neither free nor fair. Activists argue that the military has created an environment where dissent is stifled and political competition severely restricted. Sai Loung, a resident of Taunggyi, pointed out the stark divisions among the populace, with many residents refraining from voting as a form of protest against military rule. He mentioned, “Those who support the military largely participated, while a significant number of us rejected the election and chose not to vote.”
Notably, the military retains a constitutional guarantee of 25 percent of the parliamentary seats. This provision solidifies their control irrespective of electoral outcomes, giving the junta a decisive advantage in the political landscape. Despite the nominal presence of numerous parties attempting to participate, competition remains limited, highlighting the military’s tight grip on governance.
The junta dismantled the civilian Union Election Commission and replaced it with a military-appointed body, further consolidating its authority. With the backdrop of ongoing civil war and increasing oppression, reports suggest that the decision to vote was often influenced more by intimidation and the threat of repercussions than by civic duty. Sai Loung reported residents fearing punishment for abstaining, as reflected by local militias encouraging voting.
International observers, including groups from the European Union and the United Nations, have cast doubts on the credibility of this election. The general consensus among analysts is that the elections, characterized as sham contests, primarily serve the junta’s interests—essentially a way to restore a veneer of legitimacy to a regime that has faced sustained resistance since the coup. Richard Horsey from the International Crisis Group encapsulated this notion, noting that the military views this election as a corrective measure after losing to the National League for Democracy in previous elections.
In sum, the inaugural phase of these elections conveys a troubling reality for Myanmar. The USDP’s performance amid widespread boycotts and ongoing conflict reveals a system engineered to maintain military dominance rather than reflect the will of the populace. Without substantial changes in governance and a credible electoral process, Myanmar’s path remains uncertain.
"*" indicates required fields
