Abu Juwairiya
Junior Member
First, may I begin by saying I know Sister 'Queen Islam' has already spoken about the topic in 'Breaking News'. The purpose of this thread is to add some more information. The article below are excerpts from an article from the Metro, a British newspaper yesterday (09/11/2015).
'A New democracy dawns as Myanmar goes to the polls'
"Young voters could not hide their delight as Myanmar held its first democratic elections in decades yesterday- with all major parties represented for the first time since 1990.
Opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi's National League For Democracy party is expected to win an easy victory after an 80 per cent turnout.'
Myanmar, also known as Burma, was under a military dictatorship from 1962 to 2011 and the military backed Union Solidarity Development Party has held power since....
Independent analyst Richard Horsey said: 'This is very very significant. Its the first time that most people will have an opportunity to vote for the main opposition party.
Myanmar's president will be chosen after February, though Ms Suu Kyi, 70, is barred from standing in the rewritten constitution, which guarantees a quarter of seats to the military.
The country's junta held elections in 1990 but refused to cede power when Ms Suu Kyi's party won."
Personal Comment: First what do we learn from the above article. The Military ruled the country in an absolute sense from 1962 until 2011 and retain a hundred per cent control under the myth of political democracy with the Union Solidarity Development Party as the figurehead or cosmetic difference now.
Second, the main opposition party which does not represent the Rohingiya (and many other oppressed groups within Myanmar) and will do nothing for them is expected to be the only party that does well.
What it doesn't say is that the Rohingiya Muslims are politically excluded and cannot vote if they wanted too. That is two million people stripped of all electoral representation and no say in voicing any differences at the polls at all.
Third, even if she wins, a revised constitution means democracy will not allow her to have full representation electorally as a substantive number of seats have already been awarded to one side- the military irrespective of the result. That means in short, a serious inability to pass legislation the military may oppose, making compromises with them where she should not have too and worst of all not possessing full authority to act as an elected leader due to the possibility of removal, revolution, arrest, incarceration or a coup against her if she did so.
Finally, if the military refused to share power before, what is the likelihood they will now or ever. Even if pressure is applied on them to do so, what is the likelihood there will not be any resistance or real change afterwards given that power still rests with the army at the outset.
'A New democracy dawns as Myanmar goes to the polls'
"Young voters could not hide their delight as Myanmar held its first democratic elections in decades yesterday- with all major parties represented for the first time since 1990.
Opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi's National League For Democracy party is expected to win an easy victory after an 80 per cent turnout.'
Myanmar, also known as Burma, was under a military dictatorship from 1962 to 2011 and the military backed Union Solidarity Development Party has held power since....
Independent analyst Richard Horsey said: 'This is very very significant. Its the first time that most people will have an opportunity to vote for the main opposition party.
Myanmar's president will be chosen after February, though Ms Suu Kyi, 70, is barred from standing in the rewritten constitution, which guarantees a quarter of seats to the military.
The country's junta held elections in 1990 but refused to cede power when Ms Suu Kyi's party won."
Personal Comment: First what do we learn from the above article. The Military ruled the country in an absolute sense from 1962 until 2011 and retain a hundred per cent control under the myth of political democracy with the Union Solidarity Development Party as the figurehead or cosmetic difference now.
Second, the main opposition party which does not represent the Rohingiya (and many other oppressed groups within Myanmar) and will do nothing for them is expected to be the only party that does well.
What it doesn't say is that the Rohingiya Muslims are politically excluded and cannot vote if they wanted too. That is two million people stripped of all electoral representation and no say in voicing any differences at the polls at all.
Third, even if she wins, a revised constitution means democracy will not allow her to have full representation electorally as a substantive number of seats have already been awarded to one side- the military irrespective of the result. That means in short, a serious inability to pass legislation the military may oppose, making compromises with them where she should not have too and worst of all not possessing full authority to act as an elected leader due to the possibility of removal, revolution, arrest, incarceration or a coup against her if she did so.
Finally, if the military refused to share power before, what is the likelihood they will now or ever. Even if pressure is applied on them to do so, what is the likelihood there will not be any resistance or real change afterwards given that power still rests with the army at the outset.