What does the referendum really mean to the people in Burma?
Not free - Not fair - isn't worth calling a people's referendum.
By: Peh Oo Du
On May 10, voters from Karenni state went to polling stations with fear with their hearts, it is understandable that people fear the Burmese authorities since they have been harshly
oppressed for nearly half a century by the junta. However, acts of intimidation had increased in the lead up to the referendum on the new constitution. Due to the air of intimidation that was present, people went to polling station and voted ‘Yes’ against their own will.
The outcome of the referendum will determine if the constitution, that is allegedly based on drafting points from the national convention, will be accepted or not. The constitution in its current format does not include the views of the people, will further ingrain the military into power, and if adopted and accepted by the people and international community, will make reforms impossible. Whilst there may be an appearance of democratic reforms and a sense of change, these are nothing more than an illusion and behind the smoke and mirrors is only further repression and suffering.
Prior to the referendum, military officials organized meeting and training to make sure that the polling commissioner did their job properly during the voting process. Polling commissions and staff had to encourage people to vote in favour of the draft constitution.
However, the strategies used by the regime to ensure a “Yes” vote were not uniform; they differed depending on location and population. The authorities strategies include: incentives, threatening people, and doing great numbers of advance voting (please see box for more information). It is observed that fear is the most common reason for people to vote ‘Yes’.
In the remote villages, members of the military were employed as security officers and they closely monitored the referendum so they could know what the people vote for. If the military was not used, organisations or individuals with ties were used, such as the Union of Solidarity and Development Association1, retired soldiers, trusted civil servants, and members of junta-backed women’s associations, were used to monitor the voting process and intimidate voters. People feared retaliation from the Burmese army if they voted “No”.
Many polling commission chairman, village chairmen and ordinary polling commissioners did tell voters to vote ‘Yes’ even though they, themselves wanted to vote ‘No’. However, they acted as if they were junta’s puppet. “If they did not act this way or disobeyed the authorities they don’t know what the consequences for voting “NO” in the referendum would be,” claimed a meeting participant.
A village headman said that there were many ways that they military could punish them, if the majority of people in the village voted ‘No’. “Military official could say, “give them a little lesson” and what he actually means is our water can be cut off or he can restrict our traveling and he can accuse us for having contact with rebels.”
Nonetheless, a few people dared to go to the polling stations, put a cross out the ballot papers - voting ‘No’ - and expressed their will.
This constitutional process is not fair and is not democratic. The tactics used by the Burmese military ensure that the constitution that they, for all intensive purposes, drafted is adopted, enabling them to stay in power indefinitely. When thieves rob people, they usually use weapons
wear a mask to hide their face, when the military stole people’s ballots and their opportunity to have their vote, they did it without wearing a mask, because they think that their will be no consequences for their action or that no one will stand up for this injustice – which is worse. How will we as individuals, members of communities and the world stand up for those who are being intimidated into silence by the Burmese junta?
The author meet face to face and talked to more than 30 local residents in Karenni area – including a chairman of township, polling commissioners, chairman of section and villages level electoral commission staff, ordinary member of electoral commissioners, workers from education department and voters.
(Endnotes)
1 The Union Solidarity and Development Association (USDA) is a junta-back association, with many similar objectives to the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC). Many high ranking members of the junta are members of the USDA, and membership is forced upon civil servants. The USDA has been used by the SPDC to suppress protests and is responsible for the deadly attacks on Aung San Suu Kyi and her followers in May 2003.
Strategies used by the military:
- The junta scared people by spreading rumors that people who vote ‘No’ will be fined for 300,000kyat ($300) and/or punished with one years imprisonment.
- The junta intimidated people by cracking-down on whoever campaigning for vote ‘No’ and treated them like criminals.
- Village/section headmen were forced to tell their villagers to vote ‘Yes’ because the Burmese military had created an intimidating environment.
- The ceasefire groups and their families had no chance to vote and one leader from each group voted ‘Yes’ on behalf of all the soldiers and their families.
- For civil servants, there were issued compulsory advance voting where people were forced to vote in front of their supervisors or leaders.
- Almost all polling stations had no secret voting system because the polling commissioners were watching whether people voted ‘Yes’ or ‘No’, this forced people to vote ‘Yes’ as they feared about consequences because they were being watched.
- The polling commissioners helped people who seem not understand how to vote and on behalf of them by ticking ‘Yes’ for them.
- The polling officers stood behind and shouted at the voters to tick which marked ‘Yes’ vote.
- On behalf of the registered voters who did not come to vote, the commissioners voted ‘Yes’ right away on their behalf.
- Some villagers did not even come to the polling stations and touched the ballot papers, but their votes were already turned into ‘Yes’ vote by the commissioners on their behalf.
- In the remote villages, the commissioners together with military travelling village to village collected list of voters and make them sign/give their finger print. Then the commission went home and they themselves tick ‘Yes’ on behalf of those voters.
- In many villages, the villagers voted ‘Yes’ not in support of the constitution - but they voted in favor of the military in hoping that there will be lesser torturing in the future.
To read the other articles in the May 2008 Newsletter please click on the links below:
