Nearly five years after seizing power, Myanmar's junta chief Min Aung Hlaing stood inside a military base to endorse candidates for Sunday's general election. The location was fitting. This isn't a democratic exercise but a carefully choreographed performance, staged from the only venues the State Administration Council (SAC) still controls with confidence: military installations scattered across a fragmenting nation.
The numbers tell the story the junta won't acknowledge. The SAC controls roughly 20% of Myanmar's territory. Over 7,000 civilians have been killed since the 2021 coup. Some 30,000 political prisoners languish in detention, while 3.5 million people have been displaced by fighting. Against this backdrop of state failure, the military is conducting a multi-phase election—December 28 and January 11—in areas where voting is physically possible. This isn't democracy delayed by security concerns. It's a strategic calculation about which audience actually matters for regime survival.
The architecture of controlled consensus
The junta has systematically dismantled the possibility of genuine political competition. Aung San Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy, which won landslide victories in 2015 and 2020, has been dissolved. Opposition parties face bans or are boycotting. What remains is a stage-managed contest dominated by the Union Solidarity and Development Party, the military's proxy formation.
But the SAC has gone beyond merely eliminating competitors. The recently enacted Law on the Prevention of Obstruction to Multiparty Democratic General Election criminalizes virtually any criticism of the electoral process, with penalties extending to death sentences. Distributing posters, liking social media posts, or questioning the vote's legitimacy now constitute prosecutable offenses. Electronic voting and biometric surveillance through the Population Surveillance Management System aren't modernization measures—they're control infrastructure designed to monitor compliance rather than count preferences.
The phased voting schedule reveals territorial realities the junta refuses to officially recognize. Vast areas held by ethnic armed organizations and resistance forces simply won't participate. The election map effectively concedes state fragmentation while maintaining the fiction of national governance.
Members are reading: How the junta's dual-audience strategy exploits the gap between regional powers' economic interests and Western democratic condemnation to manufacture external legitimacy.
The institutional wreckage
ASEAN's Five-Point Consensus, already moribund, becomes completely unworkable after this election. The regional bloc's approach assumed eventual dialogue between the military and civilian stakeholders. Installing a pseudo-civilian government eliminates that negotiating space—the SAC can now claim it has already transitioned to elected rule, foreclosing the consensus's core demand.
The divergence between UN, US, and EU condemnation—universally labeling the vote a "sham" and "charade"—and the more measured responses from neighboring states illuminates the limits of normative pressure. When major regional powers prioritize stability and border security over democratic processes, international isolation becomes selective and therefore manageable.
The legitimacy trap
This election will not stabilize Myanmar. Instead, it crystallizes military rule within a civilian costume, removing any ambiguity about the SAC's intentions. For resistance forces and ethnic armed organizations, it eliminates hope for negotiated power-sharing, likely intensifying armed conflict. For the international community, it creates a bifurcated recognition regime where regional powers engage a "government" that Western democracies continue treating as an illegitimate junta.
The deeper question is whether Myanmar as a unified state can survive this trajectory. By staging an election that only highlights territorial fragmentation and governance failure, the junta may be accelerating the very state collapse it claims to prevent. The performance of legitimacy, when transparently divorced from actual authority, doesn't manufacture consensus—it advertises dysfunction to anyone paying attention beyond the diplomatic theater.
Subscribe to our free newsletter to unlock direct links to all sources used in this article.
We believe you deserve to verify everything we write. That's why we meticulously document every source.
