Burma has seen 14 general elections since 1922, when Britain introduced a “diarchy” system of government. Next year, the country is due to go to the polls for the 15th time. Again, an old question will be raised: will that election, and did previous ones, reflect the will of the entire Burmese people?
The country has also had several different constitutions, from the first, which took effect in April 1937, to the latest one which the current military regime claims was approved by an overwhelming majority of voters in a government-organized national referendum in May 2008. The various elections and constitutions reflected different socio-economic backgrounds and political orientations.
The first constitution, under British rule, was the Government of Burma Act 1935, passed after Burma was separated from India. Before then, elections in “Burma Proper” were held for legislative councils under the diarchy administration. Burmese nationalists boycotted the elections, claiming the people of Burma were granted a very limited franchise.
By the standards of colonial rule, the elections under the new constitution were quite representative, producing a general administration directed by a cabinet of ministers, responsible to the legislature and under the leadership of a prime minister.
The legislature consisted of a Senate, half of its members elected by the House of Representatives and half nominated by the Governor and the House of Representatives. The House of Representatives had 132 members, 92 of whom were elected to represent territorial constituencies and the remainder representing communal and other special interests.
The first general election under the 1935 constitution was held in 1936 and was contested by a number of political factions, including the fiercely nationalistic and pro-Burman “Dobama Asiayone” organization and its “Komin Kochin Party.” Dr. Ba Maw became the first prime minister.
Despite a highly democratic system developed by colonial Britain, Burmese nationalists dismissed it as a tool to prolong the British administrative mechanism. They maintained it covered only “Burma Proper,” neglecting frontier areas inhabited by ethnic nationalities.
The next truly nationwide elections were held in 1947, with the purpose of producing a constituent assembly. The Anti Fascist People’s Freedom League (AFPFL) led by Bogyoke Aung San won a landslide victory, securing 196 of the 202 seats.
The assembly passed a constitution providing for Burma’s full independence in 1948.
Critics claimed the constitution, which was rushed through the assembly within one year, contained flaws. Many ethnic leaders maintained that it was based in essence on a unitary system, rather than a federal union which had been agreed on with Aung San, the architect of the constitution at the Panglong Conference. The advisor to 1947 constitution, Chan Htoon, a former attorney general and associate justice of the supreme court, later admitted that "our constitution, though in theory federal, is in practice unitary.”
Two elections were held in the 1950s, a time of internal disorder. The AFPFL won both, securing 147 of the 250 seats in 1951 and 173 of the 221 seats in 1956.
A breakaway faction of the AFPFL, the Pyihtaung Su (Union) party, won a landslide election in 1960 called by General Ne Win’s caretaker government. A record 56 percent of the electorate turned out to vote in what was seen as Burma’s most important election yet.
U Nu, Burma’s prime minister from 1948 until 1958, again took office, and made good an election promise to ethnic leaders to review the 1947 constitution. The review was interrupted, however, by a coup led by Gen Ne Win.
Ne Win formed the Burma Socialist Programme Party (BSPP) and a new constitution was adopted in 1974 by a referendum in the absence of a parliament or constituent assembly.
The British-era “Burma Proper” or mainland Burma (bama pyi ma) of former constitutions became seven Divisions with seven States representing seven major ethnic nationalities. The new constitution also provided for elections for a Pyithu Hluttaw, or People’s Parliament. Burmese voters were called to the polls four times before the constitution was scrapped in 1988—but they couldn’t be called elections in the true sense because they served only to rubber-stamp hand-picked nominees of the ruling (BSPP), the only party at that time.
Some political leaders at first favored Ne Win’s coup, believing his claim to be establishing a socialist state. People were generally fed up with the constant power struggles and political corruption.
Only some time later did they come to understand that Ne Win’s military rule was just a sham democracy with a bogus federal structure and no representation for the people and ethnic nationalities.
In 1990, a general election was held in fulfillment of a promise by the 1988 coup leaders. In an overwhelming display of popular dislike of military rule and support for multi-party democracy, 60 percent of the more than 20 million registered voters cast their ballots for the National League for Democracy, which won 392 of the 485 contested seats.
The result, however, was ignored by the ruling military regime, which remained—and remains—in power.
The regime formed a National Convention to draft a new constitution, which was forced into effect in 2008. Under the provisions of the constitution, Burma is a Union with seven Regions (previously Divisions) and seven States. In fact, Burma is neither democratic nor a union in terms of essence—the military and the commander in chief dominate state power through various channels and sources.
The 2008 constitution was approved in the second referendum of Burma’s history—a blatantly rigged poll, in which the junta claimed more than 90 percent of the electorate had voted in favor. In reality the charter was rejected by all opposition political leaders and ethnic nationalities, even ceasefire groups.
The elections and constitutions that have marked Burma’s post-independence years have failed to meet the aspirations of the Burmese people from the very start. Although the 1947 constitution was drafted by leading political figures, including Bogyoke Aung San, it did not satisfy ethnic nationalities.
The same applied to the general election that followed. The democratic leaders at that time failed to remove the defects of the constitution and became bogged down in power politics and corruption.
In the 1970s and 1980s, political leaders were outsmarted by the military, which took over power under the guise of the “Burmese Way to Socialism,” failing to fulfill the will of the people, including the ethnic nationalities.
The 1974 constitution and the elections that followed did not even slightly reflect the people’s representation. The 1990 election was at least quite free and fair, but the result was ignored by the military without any substantial reason being given.
We need now to wait and see how long the 2008 constitution will last under military domination and how representative the planned 2010 elections turn out to be. Burma’s short post-independence history has shown that without the will and support of the general public and ethnic forces, no constitution has lasted long.