Elections under force and fear test the meaning of democracy

Elections under force and fear test the meaning of democracy | Photo: JP Desvigne

In late December 2025, Myanmar entered another electoral cycle, yet few inside or outside the country regarded it as a moment of democratic renewal. The polls, launched amid armed conflict and pervasive repression, have instead become a case study in how elections can be engineered to consolidate power rather than reflect public will. At a time when global society is increasingly attentive to human rights, digital surveillance, and fair governance, Myanmar’s experience carries implications well beyond its borders.

The warning issued days earlier by Volker Türk, serving as High Commissioner for Human Rights, framed the vote as taking place in an atmosphere of intimidation and violence. That characterisation has since been reinforced by reports from urban centres and conflict affected regions alike, where citizens face pressure from both the military authorities and armed opposition groups. Democracy, in this context, has been reduced to a procedural display rather than a genuine civic choice.

Elections without choice deepen Myanmar’s crisis

The vote is being staged in three phases across much of the country, a logistical necessity given widespread insecurity. Yet early turnout figures from cities such as Yangon and Mandalay suggest a sharp decline compared with past elections. Fear, silent protest and disillusionment appear to be keeping many at home. Analysts estimate participation in some townships may have fallen below 40 percent, a striking figure in a country where earlier elections once drew enthusiastic engagement.

Reports from the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights describe coercion as systemic. Internally displaced people have allegedly been told that failure to return to vote could result in property seizures or continued military operations. At the same time, a newly enacted election protection law has criminalised dissent, leading to severe prison sentences for symbolic acts of protest. Such measures risk entrenching a cycle of repression that undermines any claim to legitimacy.

Opposition forces have also played a destabilising role. Armed groups calling for a boycott have issued threats and carried out attacks on local administration offices, reinforcing an environment in which ordinary citizens are caught between competing forms of violence. The result is an election defined less by political debate than by survival.

Equally troubling is the technological architecture underpinning the process. An electronic only voting system, paired with artificial intelligence and biometric identification, has raised fears of mass surveillance. In a country already marked by extensive monitoring, critics argue that digital tools are being repurposed to track, intimidate and punish, rather than to safeguard electoral integrity. The use of such systems without transparency or independent oversight risks normalising authoritarian technology as a substitute for consent.

The exclusion of major political actors further hollowed out the process. Aung San Suu Kyi remains imprisoned, while the National League for Democracy was dissolved after refusing to comply with new registration rules. In their absence, the military aligned Union Solidarity and Development Party stands largely unchallenged, enjoying diplomatic support from regional powers including China, Russia and Vietnam. Many Western governments have already dismissed the outcome as lacking credibility.

Why does this matter beyond Myanmar? Elections conducted under coercion corrode public trust, deepen conflict and accelerate displacement. Southeast Asia already hosts millions of refugees, and continued instability in Myanmar places further strain on neighbouring states and regional supply chains. From a sustainability perspective, political repression undermines long term development, widening inequality and eroding the social foundations needed to meet even the most modest development benchmarks, including those aligned with SDG 16 on peace, justice and strong institutions.

Addressing this crisis requires more than condemnation. It demands sustained international engagement, protection for civil society, and careful scrutiny of how emerging technologies are used in fragile states. Readers seeking broader context may wish to explore analyses by regional policy institutes on democratic backsliding in Southeast Asia, or comparative studies on elections under military rule published by global human rights research centres.

Myanmar’s 2025 to 2026 elections will likely be remembered not for renewing democracy, but for exposing how fragile it becomes when stripped of choice, safety and trust. The lesson is uncomfortable but necessary, democracy is not defined by ballots alone, but by the conditions under which they are cast.