Political opposition groups say the country’s first national elections in 20 years are nothing more than an elaborate pretence designed to ease power from the ruling military dictatorship to its civilian proxy, the Union Solidarity Development Party.In the lead-up to the 2010 elections, the regime has jailed hundreds of political prisoners, including Aung San Suu Kyi. It has also introduced a series of electoral laws and campaign restrictions to stifle the opposition, all while claiming the measures are to make sure the elections are “free and fair”.

Moe Zaw Oo, joint secretary of the National League for Democracy (NLD) in exile, says the international community’s initial insistence that the opposition should accept the regime’s election unconditionally despite the restrictions was destructive, naive and at best misplaced.

Speaking from the Thai-Burma border last week, Moe Zaw said the warning signs that the regime was not acting in the best interests of the Burmese people were there for all to see.

“There’s not an opposition politician in any democratic society who would accept the military regime’s conditions for the [Nov 7] election. Nobody should be surprised the election is rigged _ look at the electoral laws. Look at the Electoral Commission. Look at the 2008 constitution. It’s all part of a long-term strategy to transfer and consolidate the military’s power to a hand-picked civilian-based political organisation.”

Moe Zaw is scathing in his assessment of international academics, political analysts, international think tanks and long-time Burma watchers, who he says in their stampede to get a foot in Burma’s barely-opening door were prepared to sweep aside the corruption, lies, deceit, electoral fraud and the regime’s appalling track record on human rights.

“So many of these groups got it wrong. These [Western and Asean] countries need to take a close look at what they pay their so-called ‘experts’ and assess what they’re getting for their dollar. Their track record on what is happening in Burma is dismal. They treat Burma as if it’s an intellectual exercise for their amusement. They [the international community] should have been listening and acting on what Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and what the NLD was telling them from the beginning.”

Speaking on Australia’s ABC radio, Michael Maley, an expert on electoral reform, said those who regard compromise as an acceptable election option should reconsider what they want from a free and fair poll in Burma.

Mr Maley lists a series of checks and tests to assess if an election is free and fair: “The need for impartial administration of the vote, transparency, secret voting, no vote buying or multiple voting, an absence of intimidation and the ability to count ballots accurately.”

Mr Maley told the ABC’s Linda Mottram he disagreed with the line that any election is better than none, and said “a crooked election sold as a valid exercise is a blasphemy”.

Moe Zaw says nobody, least of all the international community, should be surprised that the regime’s carefully crafted election was designed to sideline Burma’s biggest opposition party, the NLD. He cites Burma’s last national elections held 20 years ago as proof of the NLD’s popularity with voters.

In 1990, in spite of massive military intimidation, the NLD won a decisive victory _ 392 seats, 80% of the vote. The people had spoken, but the generals’ response was to jail the NLD leaders, its elected representatives and its members and supporters. Mrs Suu Kyi, the NLD leader, has spent 14 of the last 20 years under some form of detention. The military regime plans to release her later this year, but will probably wait until after it wins the Nov 7 election.

Moe Zaw says the late announcement of the regime’s election laws leaves little to chance and gives the opposition no space to manoeuvre their candidates into place or talk to the voters.

One of the electoral laws, the Political Party Registration Law, allows the committee to reject party applications. It also bans democracy organisations, armed groups opposed to the regime, groups or individuals receiving foreign support and about 2,100 political prisoners from taking part in the elections. This includes Mrs Suu Kyi, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, as well as 430 jailed NLD members.

At the time of their announcement the electoral laws drew strong criticism from Brad Adams, Asia director of New York-based  Human Rights Watch.

“The new laws’ assault on opposition groups is sadly predictable. It continues the sham political process that is aimed at creating the appearance of civilian rule with a military spine.” The electoral laws also nullify the results of the 1990 election.

David Mathieson, a Burma expert at Human Rights Watch, acknowledged that the regime’s preparations for the election have been carefully orchestrated. “The regime is leaving nothing to chance in their quest to guarantee they continue to keep power. They have cynically used the constitution, the electoral laws, the trial and the jailing of Aung San Suu Kyi and the imprisonment of 2,100 political opponents to do so.” Mr Mathieson says those who think the election is an opportunity to crack open an imperfect system are way off the mark.

“Anyone who believes it is going to be a new dawn after the election is deluding themselves.”

CLIMATE OF FEAR

Khun Myint Tun, an exiled Burmese member of parliament, who in 1990 won the seat of Phaton in Mon State, says the 2010 elections are not the start of a transition to democracy, but rather another step in the regime’s continuing consolidation of its authority.

“There is no freedom of association, no freedom of assembly and no freedom of speech.

“How can anyone claim these elections will be free and fair?”

Khun Myint has personal experience of how far the regime is prepared to go to maintain its climate of fear and oppression over its political opponents.

“I was jailed for seven years and kept in solitary confinement for having a booklet about non-violent struggle in my possession. I was denied food and water, and for five nights and days I was made to sit hooded on a stool while military intelligence officers interrogated me. My hood was only removed at meal times and for toilet breaks.  I was not allowed to sleep.”

Khun Myint says it baffles him when international analysts and political pundits claim Burma is experiencing election fever.

“They are reading into it what’s not there. Why not see the reality that is there, like the regime reserving 25% of seats for serving military officers _ that’s 110 uncontested seats they will automatically get in the lower house.

“Under the constitution the president has to have military experience, and the military will control three key ministries; defence, home affairs and border area administration.”

Khun Myint says the international community is only looking at Burma in the short term and what natural resources can be exploited.

“The long-term ramifications of what this election means for the people of Burma will be devastating, and we will have to live with that. I regard countries supporting Burma as in an alliance with the regime. By association, they aren’t free from human right violations. China, Thailand, Japan, South Korea, North Korea, Russia, France and the US all have companies making lots of money from Burma’s natural resources.

“The people of Burma are not seeing any of the benefits.”

Indeed, the Burmese people will see little if any of the billions of dollars earned from the country’s natural resources, as the regime moves the money offshore for its own use. Sean Turnell, an economist from Macquarie University in Sydney, estimates that Burma receives between $1 billion (31.3 billion baht) and $2 billon a year from its sales of natural gas to Thailand alone.

THE PEOPLE GET NOTHING

Burma is dirt poor and villagers interviewed for this story said the election is far from being a priority for them. They say they want a government that will fix the potholed roads, turn the electricity on, educate their children and provide health care for them when they are sick.

Saw Tapaw says his village is about 24 hours from Rangoon and eight hours from the Thai-Burma border. He laughs when I ask if his village is on the government’s electricity grid.

“We can’t even afford candles, never mind electricity. People are not excited about the election. They are more concerned about having enough rice to eat, finding building materials to keep the rain out and having clothes to wear. People have lost hope in the country.”

Saw Tapaw says it made him angry when he came to Thailand and realised how much people in Burma are missing.

“I see what people in Thailand have; refrigerators, clean water, ice, street vendors selling hot food and every kind of medicine. We have nothing. Our roads are nothing more than mud tracks. We can’t even grow enough food for ourselves. We don’t even have a postal system. Our schools have to be paid for by us _ the building, the teachers, the books. All we get from the government is the recognition we have a school.”

Saw Tapaw says farmers’ work hard, but the military’s demands for their labour leave little time to work on their farms.

“We used to be able to spend all our time on the farm, but now the army orders us to cut bamboo and build their camps and carry their supplies on a three-month roster. It leaves us no time for cultivation.”

Saw Tapaw is a thin, quiet man who takes each question apart before answering.

“In our town there are about 2,400 people and about half are eligible to vote. But most are not interested. They say the military will win like they always do.

“We didn’t vote for them in 1990 or in the 2008 referendum, but the village vote was taken as a ‘yes’ for the military. During the referendum vote the soldiers came to the village and rounded up as many as they could _ you can’t really call it voting, there was nothing secret about it.

“They take the names and registration of those who turn up and go. We weren’t told who we had just voted for.”

Saw Tapaw says that aside from knowing that their household registrations have been taken for the purpose of the Nov 7 election, they have little information on what parties are contesting, who the candidates will be or even what constituency they are in.

“Only those who listen to the exile media on the radio know about the election, but soldiers have asked the headman to make sure a lot of villagers turn up.”

THE FINAL STEP

Khun Myint says the elections are the regime’s final step in hijacking Burma’s democratic process for its own profit. He insists the regime’s immediate priority is to transfer and consolidate its military might and supremacy in a civilian-based, political organisation.

He explains the regime allowed the Union Solidarity and Development Association (USDA), with an estimated more than 24 million members, to reinvent itself as the Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP).

Hardcore USDA members are not new to politics or shy in using violence to achieve their objectives. In July, Human Rights Watch highlighted how the military regime used the group against its opponents.

“Mass demonstrations by USDA members have been conducted throughout the country since the mid-1990s, where members give speeches denouncing the political opposition, the United States, the International Labour Organisation and extolling the virtues of the SPDC.”

Human Rights Watch also noted how the USDA used violence against Mrs Suu Kyi and her supporters and were part of the violent crackdown against monks and peaceful demonstrators in the 2007 protests.

The USDP leader, Thein Sein, is the military regime’s prime minister and a former senior military officer.

The USDP is one of only two parties that has the capacity to run candidates in all electoral districts.

Richard Horsey, an independent political analyst, explained in a briefing paper for the Conflict Prevention and Peace Forum that contesting a seat in the Burmese elections costs a non-refundable $500 fee for each candidate.

“Few parties have the intention and capacity to run national campaigns. At this stage, it appears that the national contest will come down to four main parties: two representing the ‘establishment’ [the Union Solidarity and Development Party and the National Unity Party] and two ‘democrat’ parties [the National Democratic Force and the Democratic Party].”

With the electoral laws and restrictions on parties and their candidates, the military regime, while competing in the Nov 7 election to give it legitimacy, has got its political opponents where it wants them, confused and on the ropes. They are cash-strapped and unable to move or talk freely to voters in their districts.

Saw Tapaw believes the outcome of the 2010 election will not be any different from the outcome of the last election.

“The 2010 election and the 1990 election will be more of the same. During the previous election, the soldiers came with the NUP and now the soldiers will come with the USDP. They will use our names, but we won’t have a choice who they are given to.”

Saw Tapaw says the USDP was planning and campaigning in rural communities even before the party officially existed.

Villagers say USDP campaign pre-election activities include promising to build bridges, put in roads, set up telephone landlines in remote areas and offering substantial gifts to village heads to ensure the village vote goes to them.

Unless something drastic happens before polling day, Burmese voters say there is little hope that the quality of their lives will improve after the election.