Myanmar election campaign not much in evidence

At the Nandawun market on the outskirts of Yangon, independent candidate Kaung Myint Htut and a dozen campaign workers in T-shirts distribute photocopied pamphlets.

The ragged band moves about in a pair of battered, 2-decade-old jeeps that list and belch smoke, dented speakers on the roofs playing popular nationalist tunes. Most onlookers appear bemused.

Several times in a 90-minute period Thursday, the motley contingent passed entourages from the main pro-government Union Solidarity and Development Party. The contrast couldn’t be greater. Each USDP campaign crew boasted up to 15 late-model Toyotas, scores of workers, musicians and a juggler.

Campaigning ahead of Sunday’s parliamentary election, the first in 20 years for Myanmar, has been a story of haves and have-nots — when it has been visible at all. Other than the moving entourages, a few USDP billboards and the occasional candidate distributing literature at local markets, there’s often little evidence of a contest at all.

Which isn’t a bad thing for a military regime that has ruled the country, formerly known as Burma, with a strong hand for decades and wants to keep it that way. Sizable fees to field candidates, a limited registration period, bans on mass rallies and television exposure limited to 15 minutes a day for pre-approved speeches make it a near certainty that the ruling generals and their associates will win.

Though the USDP may not earn great affection, analysts say, it’s the only party able to offer candidates in virtually all 1,171 constituencies. Moreover, the regime’s strongest opponent, Nobel Peace Prize laureate Aung San Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy party, is not participating because of what it considers unjust election laws.

In 1990, the NLD won four out of five contested seats, shocking the junta, which refused to accept the results. This time the regime has crafted the constitution and election rules to avoid surprises. Suu Kyi is under detention, where she has been for 15 of the last 21 years, unable to participate in the election.

Instead, opponents include weak and underfunded independent and minor party candidates, including a splinter group of the NLD, the National Democratic Force.

“They’re very close to us, but we think they have the wrong interpretation,” said Han Tha Myint, a member of the NLD’s central executive committee. “It’s a kind of betrayal.”

The opposition also faces citizen apathy. “I’m not going to vote,” said a laborer drinking tea as Kaung Myint Htut passed by. “I’m quite busy. And I’m not very interested.”

And local bosses can also muscle villagers into voting en masse for the regime and inflate voter rolls, opposition supporters say.

Finally, there are those who support the regime. These include farmers who feel obliged to support a state that has extended irrigation and construction loans.

A teacher sidles up for a chat. “No one is talking about the election — if this were for real, they’d all be talking,” the 53-year-old said. “The regime will win by crook or hook. Many people won’t vote. If the lady [Suu Kyi] were running, it would be 100%.”

Wary of calls to boycott the vote, the government has issued warnings against “coercing” others into not voting and has blamed the foreign media for stirring up anti-voting campaigns.

Myanmar recently rejected outside election observers. “We have abundant experience in holding elections,” said Thein Soe, the nation’s election commission chairman, in a country that’s seen two in the last 50 years.

Security is not as obvious as might be expected, arguably a measure of the regime’s confidence. Beyond the occasional open-backed police truck, its riot shields hugging the perimeter like oversized fish scales, plainclothes police are out in force. That in itself creates a chill that belies the humid tropical climate.

Most analysts say the election was called to give the country a patina of legitimacy so Myanmar’s chief supporters — namely its Southeast Asian neighbors and China — can better defend the isolated regime against Western critics.

The leadership’s reputation took a beating after Cyclone Nargis, when critics charged it with withholding humanitarian aid to maintain its grip on power, and the year before that in a 2007 crackdown on monks protesting massive price hikes.

Though the electoral rules heavily favor pro-government parties, even opponents acknowledge that the new system is harder to rig since votes will be counted and released at the township level, allowing greater local scrutiny.

The U.S., the United Nations, the European Union and others have condemned the election as a sham. Moderates here counter that it’s easy to be brave from afar, and argue that there’s value in applying pressure from within.

Granted, the military is guaranteed 25% of the seats, an additional 30% will probably go to pro-military parties and the president will almost certainly be a former general.

Still, opposition and independent candidates say that once elected to parliament they can push for greater disclosure on the national budget — currently a state secret — so that more money is routed to health and welfare as opposed to weaponry, and questions can be posed about why a few crony families control so much of the economy.

“We don’t really anticipate democracy from this election,” said one moderate. “If the military doesn’t gain access to the presidency, they could stage a coup, pushing us back further. So our aim is to address some of the fundamental flaws, especially related to economic hardship.”

Kaung Myint Htut hopes he is among those who make a difference.

“It’s a tragedy what the government is doing,” he said as he greeted potential voters in a longyi, or sarong, and blue vest beside a slogan reading “For democracy and human rights.”

“This is the real Burma of poor people, bad roads and houses.”

As the sun dipped over the narrow lanes and tin-roofed shacks, Kaung Myint Htut urged people to vote for him as two monks in pink robes passed by with begging bowls.

“We Burmese people need to worry for our future,” he said. “We’ve suffered a long time.”