International Legitimacy, ASEAN, and the Limits of a Military Vote

“It is evident that they have not a shred of goodwill or concern for the welfare of the people of Myanmar.”

This piece reflects on the key perspectives shared by Daw Khin Ohmar, founder of Progressive Voice and a long standing human rights advocate. Her contribution focused on international legitimacy, ASEAN’s role, and why the military’s election strategy poses long term risks for Myanmar.

ASEAN, China, and the Question of Legitimacy

Daw Khin Ohmar highlighted that ASEAN, particularly under Malaysia’s current chairmanship, has taken a clearer stance toward the military’s sham election. She noted that ASEAN has acknowledged that the election will not resolve Myanmar’s crisis and has decided not to send election observers. This signals that the results of the election are unlikely to be accepted as legitimate.

At the same time, she cautioned that ASEAN is not politically uniform. Some member states are experiencing democratic backsliding, while others are strongly influenced by China. China, she emphasized, is likely to support and promote the junta’s election for its own strategic and economic interests. Because of this, civil society organizations must remain politically vigilant, continuously monitoring regional dynamics and countering efforts to normalize the military through diplomatic engagement. 

A Failed Claim to Sovereignty

According to Daw Khin Ohmar, the SAC lacks the basic characteristics of a sovereign authority. It has failed to seize power legitimately and does not exercise nationwide territorial control. These facts, she argued, must be communicated clearly to the international community.

From her perspective, the election is not a genuine political process but an exit strategy. By staging a vote, the military aims to claim international legitimacy, reopen economic channels, attract foreign investment, and entrench its power under the 2008 Constitution. None of these actions, she stressed, reflect concern for democracy or the welfare of the people. 

Why 2025 Is Not 2010

Daw Khin Ohmar strongly rejected comparisons between the current situation and Myanmar’s post 2010 period. While some investors and foreign actors hope the election will lead to reopening and economic access, she argued that this assumption ignores critical differences.

Unlike earlier military leaders who allowed limited power sharing as a strategic calculation, the current junta leadership is driven by total domination. Even commitments such as ASEAN’s Five Point Consensus have been disregarded. The objective now, she explained, is not compromise or transition, but complete annihilation of resistance and absolute control. 

Democracy Building from the Ground Up

Despite the junta’s determination to proceed with the election, Daw Khin Ohmar emphasized that resistance continues to grow across Myanmar. Ethnic revolutionary organizations are actively engaged under a shared federal democratic vision, while local communities are building governance structures in liberated areas.

She described these efforts as democracy building from below. As these structures expand and strengthen, the junta’s election, conducted only in limited areas, will further expose its lack of legitimacy rather than conceal it. 

After the Sham Election

Looking ahead, Daw Khin Ohmar warned that the political landscape emerging from the sham election could be darker than before. She anticipated the consolidation of a network composed of military officers, proxy political parties, business cronies, militia groups, and criminal actors attempting to present themselves as a legitimate government.

However, she emphasized that legitimacy cannot be declared from Naypyidaw. It is built through territorial control, institutional development, and sustained relationships with communities. As revolutionary forces continue to strengthen these foundations, the junta’s self proclaimed authority will increasingly lose credibility. 

A Message to the People

When asked what advice she would give to the public, Daw Khin Ohmar expressed confidence in the people’s political awareness. Those living under military control understand their risks and constraints. Votes cast under coercion do not represent genuine political will.

At the same time, people living in liberated and revolutionary controlled areas are already expressing their rejection of the junta’s election through daily actions and resistance. In this context, she argued that there is no need to legitimize or even focus attention on a process designed to deceive. 

Holding the Line

Daw Khin Ohmar concluded by underscoring the responsibility of revolutionary forces and civil society to maintain political clarity, coordination, and strategic balance. As long as legitimacy continues to be built on the ground, hand in hand with communities, the SAC’s sham election will remain a hollow exercise without the consent of the people. 

Note

This article is part of a series of reflections drawn from a People’s Goal Talk Show panel discussion titled “How to Counter the SAC’s Sham Election.” Other panelists’ perspectives are published separately.