New constitution
In May 2008, the authorities held a referendum on a new constitution giving immunity to perpetrators of human rights violations, including government officials and the security forces. In the lead-up to the poll, authorities introduced a new law prohibiting public criticism of the referendum and its socio-political organisation, the Union Solidarity and Development Association, launched a ‘vote yes’ campaign. The ‘vote no’ movement by peaceful anti-government activists was severely restricted through cash incentives, monopolisation and manipulation of the media, harassment, arrests and violent attacks on individuals. More than 70 ‘vote no’ activists were arrested in April 2008 and Amnesty International is aware of at least 55 people who are still behind bars.
The government proceeded with the referendum in the immediate aftermath of Cyclone Nargis, which struck the country on 2 and 3 May 2008, leaving more than 140,000 people dead or missing. The authorities later announced that 98.1 per cent of eligible voters had voted during the referendum and that 92.4 per cent of these were in favour of the new constitution.
Amnesty International has learned that soldiers marched people to the polls. They evicted people from monasteries, schools, their homes or temporary shelters and forced them to participate. In most cases, they were told how to vote; in others, they were told not to vote because others had voted for them.
Electoral laws
In March 2010, the government enacted five electoral laws and four bylaws for the forthcoming elections. These laws clearly violate the rights to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly, and association:
- They arbitrarily exclude whole sections of Burmese society, including ‘persons serving a prison term under a sentence passed by any court’ (Pyithu Hluttaw Election Law, SPDC Law No. 3/2010, chapter IV and Amyotha Hluttaw Election Law, SPDC Law No. 4/2010, chapter IV). This excludes more than 2,200 political prisoners.
- The Political Parties Registration Law bars all political prisoners from membership to a political party, including Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and hundreds of other imprisoned opposition members (Political Parties Registration Law, SPDC Law No. 2/2010, chapter II).
- The electoral laws limit who can run in the elections and may be applied to non-violent opposition groups. ‘Credible contact’ with an ‘unlawful association’ can lead to a person being categorised as ineligible (Pyithu Hluttaw Election Law, SPDC Law No. 3/2010, chapter V).
- The electoral laws also list a number of offences and penalties, including a vaguely worded provision against ‘exhorting’ persons to vote or not in the elections (Pyithu Hluttaw Election Law, SPDC Law No. 3/2010, chapter XIII and Amyotha Hluttaw Election Law, SPDC Law No. 4/2010, chapter XIII). This is in blatant violation of the right to freedom of expression.
The authorities said that the laws are necessary because “there may be acts by subversives to disrupt elections” and reminded citizens that a harsh 1996 Law Protecting the Peaceful and Systematic Transfer of State Responsibility is still in force. The law provides for a five to 20 year prison sentence for anyone who “incites, delivers speeches or makes oral or written statements that undermine the stability of the state, community peace and tranquillity and prevalence of law and order”. Any organisation that violates the law can be suspended.
In June, the Union Election Commission banned political parties from undertaking campaigning activities that could “harm security, the rule of law and community peace”.
Suppression of peaceful political dissent
The authorities have for many years justified the imprisonment of thousands of people on the basis that they were seeking to cause unrest or that they posed threats to or committed acts deemed to disrupt law and order, peace and tranquillity. These terms are found in a range of vaguely-worded security laws that allow a very broad interpretation of what constitutes a threat to their rule,[1] and allow authorities to label peaceful political dissent as criminal.
The vast majority of the 2,200 political prisoners in Burma are being punished for merely exercising their rights to the three freedoms.
Many of those in prison are leaders of political parties or grassroots activists who, unless they are released, will not be able to participate in the elections. Prison conditions in Burma are harsh – torture is common and prisoners are denied sufficient food and basic healthcare. Political prisoners are frequently transferred to remote locations far from their families and support networks.
There is a real fear that activists, especially those from ethnic minorities and the NLD, which is boycotting the elections, will come under increased repression as the elections approach.
And new censorship rules introduced in June undermine any remaining scope for independent journalism around the elections process.
Past crackdowns
History shows that public acts of dissent have resulted in brutal crackdowns.
8/8/88
On 8 August 1988, students took to the streets in the capital Yangon (then called Rangoon) to demand democracy and human rights from their government and an end to 26 years of military rule. Over the next six weeks, the demonstrations grew in number and popular support and spread across the country. Security forces moved in and violently suppressed the uprising, killing more than 3,000 people and caused the enforced disappearance of an unknown number of others.
Saffron revolution
In September 2007, monks led tens of thousands of people in demonstrations across Burma, known as the Saffron Revolution. The government eventually responded with lethal force, firing bullets into crowds and beating protesters. It is believed that more than 100 people were killed in the crackdown. As security forces in Burma are almost never held to account for human rights violations, the use of excessive force in policing demonstrations is a real concern.
Widespread and systematic human rights violations persist in Burma. Unless the international community urgently pays attention in the lead-up to the coming elections and demand essential human rights protection, people will continue to be denied the three freedoms and yet another opportunity for positive change will be lost.
Defend three freedoms in Burma
Burmese authorities have promised ‘free and fair’ elections. The majority of governments, including Burma’s neighbours in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), are calling for and hoping this will be the case.
However, the reality is that the expression of such hopes will do little to address the restrictions on human rights already in place.
In order to protect the human rights of the people of Burma during and after the elections,
- The Burmese authorities to guarantee the three freedoms of expression, association and peaceful assembly for all. This includes being able to campaign for a boycott of the elections, to report openly on the elections, to print campaign material without censorship, to speak freely and without punishment to the media, to join political parties and to hold meetings and demonstrations.
- All political prisoners arrested for their peaceful activism to be released immediately and unconditionally.
- The repression of ethnic minority activists to cease immediately.
- The international community, particularly Burma’s neighbours and other concerned governments, to publicly call for the three freedoms to be respected and to speak out forcefully if individuals are harassed and detained for their peaceful political views and activities in the lead-up to the elections and beyond.
We cannot let the repression continue while Burma’s election goes ahead. With your help, we can work towards a global outcry that ensures the people of Burma are protected in the lead up to the 2010 elections and beyond
[1] For a more detailed discussion of the relevant laws used to criminalise peaceful dissent, see Justice on Trial, July 2003, (AI Index: ASA 16/019/2003).
