On September 26, Myanmar’s military council issued a statement urging resistance forces to lay down their arms and participate in regime-organized elections. Titled “Offer to Resolve Political Issues by Political Means”, this statement sparked confusion, with some, including reputable international media, mistakenly interpreting it as an “appeal for talks on a political solution to the armed conflict”. In reality, the regime’s message is clear: They intend to hold elections under the already-dissolved 2008 constitution, demanding that the resistance disarm, form political parties, and participate in these elections.
Rather than an invitation to political dialogue, this call to participate in a rigged election is a deliberate strategy to avoid dialogue. It is a familiar tactic from the generals, yet this time it appears tailored to project an image of inclusive elections to China and Myanmar’s credulous neighboring countries. Moreover, it seeks to discredit legitimate opposition, framing their refusal to participate as an obstacle to stability. However, this strategy will likely only lead to further escalation of conflict.
A series of statements
The day before the September 26 statement, the regime released three other announcements, primarily designed to curry favor with China. One of these, titled “China, the True Friend of the Myanmar People”, praised China’s support for the regime while blaming the US for backing resistance groups that the regime accuses of attempting to destroy the country.
The fall of Lashio to resistance forces on August 3 dealt a severe blow to the beleaguered regime in Naypyitaw, eroding its credibility and support, even among its staunchest allies. This loss has resulted in widespread demoralization among military commanders and troops. Compounding this, the regime then faced a serious economic crisis, with rumors swirling about an internal coup in Naypyitaw.
In this turbulent context, the visit of Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi on August 14 seemed to provide a lifeline. According to internal sources, the regime circulated videos of Wang’s meeting with the junta’s chief to senior military commanders in an effort to restore morale and confidence. The regime has framed this visit as a demonstration of Chinese support on the world stage.
Yet, despite this perceived boost, the military’s capacity to launch effective counteroffensives to reclaim lost territories remains in serious doubt. Instead, what they can do with this newfound confidence is escalate their terror campaigns, marked by increased aerial bombings in resistance-controlled areas. Reports from credible sources within the military indicate that Senior General Min Aung Hlaing has instructed a ramp-up of targeted airstrikes, specifically aimed at civilian populations, instilling fear throughout these communities. According to the source, he stated, “They have to fear even when they hear the sounds of aircraft.”
Since Wang’s visit, the regime has conducted over 313 airstrikes in areas controlled by resistance forces, intentionally targeting civilian neighborhoods and resulting in at least 182 civilian deaths and over 237 injuries. This grim reality serves as a stark warning to neighboring countries and the international community: Engaging with the generals in Naypyitaw will not foster stability or lead to a political solution. Instead, it will embolden the regime and further its violent agenda against innocent civilians.
Election denier’s plan for another election
During his trip, Wang urged the junta chief to conduct an “all-inclusive election”, promising support for a census process and the elections. This urging underpinned the regime’s call for resistance groups to participate. However, the generals know that this call is unrealistic and unlikely to yield any meaningful results. Their goal is clear: For the international community to see the State Administration Council as a good faith partner in finding a path out of the conflict in Myanmar, and to see the resistance as an obstacle to that path.
The resistance movement arose in response to the military coup, which followed the military’s rejection of the legitimate outcome of the 2020 elections—where 70 percent of 37 million registered voters cast their ballots. The regime imprisoned leaders of the winning National League for Democracy (NLD), killing party members and innocent civilians who supported the election outcome. Over three years of military rule, the regime has waged a terror campaign against civilians, marked by indiscriminate killings, brutal tactics such as burnings, beheadings, mutilations, village torching, and widespread aerial bombings. As a result of its brutality, the military has lost its slender political constituency and is now recognized by the public as the primary agent of instability in Myanmar.
The public and resistance groups, who have suffered under the regime’s brutal oppression, will not accept a rigged election led by the reviled regime. Myanmar’s generals also have a long history of rejecting elections that threaten their grip on power. Not only did they reject the 2020 results, they rejected the results of the 1990 election and rigged the 2010 vote against the public’s will. For the regime, elections are not a genuine expression of the people’s will to choose their government, but rather a political charade designed to maintain its grip on power. The public will no longer accept this system.
From the depths of their bitter experience, the people of Myanmar recognize that the regime’s planned elections herald a return to a shadowy political past, where the military’s unyielding grip on power breeds ceaseless instability, inter-communal fragmentation, resistance, and a cycle of bloodshed and coups.
The regime’s call for ethnic armed organizations (EAOs) to participate in these elections is merely a political ploy intended to mislead the international community. The EAOs, which have fought tirelessly for their own political futures—demanding federalism and self-governance—have never recognized the military-drafted 2008 constitution. Therefore, following the political opening in 2010, the Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement and the Peace Process emerged as attempts to find a political solution beyond the 2008 constitution’s constraints. However, the regime itself brought this political negotiation process to an abrupt end with its ill-fated coup.
Without genuine political negotiation and agreement, the regime’s call for EAOs to form parties and participate in the elections is unlikely to yield any meaningful outcome. The current context further undermines this call, as the EAOs have achieved significant military gains, repelling military control over more than 60 percent of their respective territories. This is an historic opportunity to expel the primary source of instability and suffering—the Myanmar military—and it cannot be missed.
However, this does not mean that the resistance groups have rejected political talks, as some news agencies have mistakenly suggested. The resistance groups have expressed a willingness to engage in political negotiations to resolve the current crisis; however, they have established key preconditions to break free from the violent political past. These preconditions include: ending the military’s involvement in politics, placing the armed forces under the control of a democratically elected civilian government, promulgating a new constitution that embodies federalism and democratic values, and establishing a new federal democratic union based on this constitution.
The generals have never meaningfully engaged in political negotiations. Even the small trade-offs that they perceive as chipping away at their power are intolerable to them. Instead, they want their counterparts to surrender and play to their game plan that ensures their continued grip on power. The international community should not be fooled—the latest statement is not an invitation to political negotiation or even to a legitimate election. It is an invitation to surrender to continued military domination.
Regime elections only worsen instability
Misguided by the 2010 elections orchestrated by the regime, which led to political transitions, some members of the international community—particularly in neighboring countries—may naively hope for a similar outcome following the regime’s upcoming polls. However, the political and conflict landscape today is vastly different from that of 2010. The military has suffered a series of defeats, with large swathes of territories across the country now beyond its full control. Resistance forces, particularly the EAOs, have gained significant strength and pose serious threats to the regime’s hold over major cities.
The ongoing armed conflict has severely disrupted communication and transportation networks, rendering coordinated electoral processes nearly impossible. Widespread insecurity throughout the country undermines the stable environment necessary for administering elections. Each step in the electoral process is vulnerable to significant resistance, making it perilous and unmanageable. Moreover, there are no signs that the military will be able to contain the resistance forces in the near future—or by the time of its planned “elections.” Thus, the regime is currently ill-equipped to hold even a sham election comparable to that of 2010.
Even if the regime pushes for half-baked elections amidst this turmoil, it will not provide a solution to the ongoing crisis; instead, they are likely to lead to further instability. The international community is fully justified in seeking to restore stability in Myanmar, particularly given that the destabilizing effects of the military’s coup are now resonating throughout the region.
However, they must resist the temptation to offer confidence to a genocidal dictatorship with no political constituency. Doing so would only facilitate further atrocities against innocent civilians as we saw after Wang’s recent visit. Similarly, supporting the regime’s sham election will only spark an escalation of violence, prolonging the war and deepening the suffering of the Myanmar people.
Ye Myo Hein is a senior expert at the United States Institute of Peace and global fellow at the Wilson Center.
