Many people regularly question how free and fair the November 8 election will be. This is not surprising given the bitter experience in the 2010 election with advance votes. Concerns about the credibility of the election are usually based on the voter lists, advance votes, the potential for violence and other security issues. Finally, there is the question of whether the Union Election Commission (UEC) is really independent in its actions. However, very few people have political finance, which plays a vital role in determining how free and fair an election could be.
Political finance should not be overlooked, however, when determining how free and fair the electoral process is. It has been recognised as an important determinant of how democratic a country is. For instance, the United Nations Human Rights Committee’s General Comments clearly expresses concerns over voters’ rights being violated by money, saying that “voters should be able to form opinion independently, free of violence, or threat of violence, compulsion, inducement or manipulative inference of any kind. Reasonable limitations on campaign finance may be justified where this is necessary to ensure that the free choice of voters is undermined or the democratic process distorted by the disproportionate expenditure on behalf of any candidate or party.”
The issue of political finance – both party finance and campaign finance – could create questions over the fairness of the November election for several reasons. This is not necessarily because candidates or parties are breaking the election laws but because the laws themselves do not adequately cover the issue. There are a considerable number of loopholes for parties and candidates to exploit.
First, the election laws do not allow foreign donations, whether from individuals, businesses or organisations, to Myanmar parties or candidates. They also ban contributions from religious organisations and the use of state resources. But in reality it is difficult to enforce these two provisions. For example, what happens when a candidate holds a campaign event at a religious compound with the assistance of that religious group? The law is not clear. Abuse of state resources is also relevant. How does it apply to government officials, such as Union ministers, who are contesting the elections? Are there restrictions on how they can use their existing powers to win votes?
The second issue is the limit on campaign spending. The election law states that a candidate cannot spend more than K10 million (US$7765) during the two-month campaign period. The figure is small relative to other countries, particularly when compared on a per-voter basis. Cambodia does not even have a limit on campaign spending, according to election research data from International IDEA. In Myanmar, this limit seems particularly unfair on Amyotha Hluttaw candidates, who typically have to cover a far larger geographical area than their counterparts from the Pyithu Hluttaw or state and region hluttaws. As a result, they are likely to incur much higher travel expenses during campaigning.
Third is the issue of financial disclosure. This is quite important to address since it relates to the transparency of the election. Myanmar candidates must disclose how much they spend at the end of the electoral period, particularly whether they stick to the spending limit of K10 million. But how would the commission know if they did spend more than that? Monitoring campaign finance, particularly given Myanmar has a largely cash-based economy, is close to impossible. Receipts can be doctored, or spending ignored. The UEC has also not set up a “cost standardisation” system, whereby it states how much it should cost to hold a campaign rally for a particular number of participants.
Fourth is oversight and sanctions. The election laws state that either a voter or a competing candidate can make a complaint over a candidate’s spending. This suggests that the burden of oversight is on rival candidates rather than an independent body or institution. Those found guilty of violations face disqualification. This steep punishment poses political risks because losing candidates will be encouraged to file a complaint in the hope of overturning the result.
The Myanmar election laws have several loopholes, especially in campaign finance. Political parties and interest groups, including the UEC, should work together to ensure these do not threaten the credibility of the election. They should also begin the process of reforming campaign finance regulations, to which election observers can add their advice and recommendations after the vote. The aim should be for Myanmar’s next election to be fought on as level a playing field as possible.
Aung Tun is an independent consultant focusing on local governance, elections and economic development. He previously worked as a journalist for several years in Myanmar.
