The Uncredible Ballot: Analyzing the EU’s Stance on Myanmar’s 2025 Elections and the Broader Crisis of Democratic Legitimacy
Abstract
This paper critically examines the European Union’s (EU) decision not to send observers to the impending 2025 elections in Myanmar, as articulated by the EU’s Special Representative for Human Rights, Kajsa Ollongren. Drawing upon the context of the 2021 military coup that ousted a democratically elected civilian government, the paper argues that the EU’s stance reflects a principled rejection of electoral processes engineered by an authoritarian regime to legitimate its rule. It analyzes the fundamental criteria for credible elections—including political freedoms, equitable participation, and an independent electoral administration—and demonstrates how Myanmar’s current political landscape systematically violates these norms. The paper concludes that the EU’s position is not merely a diplomatic protest but a significant affirmation of international democratic principles, highlighting the profound crisis of legitimacy faced by the Myanmar junta and the severe implications for the country’s democratic future and human rights.
Keywords
Myanmar, 2025 Elections, European Union, Electoral Credibility, Military Junta, Human Rights, Democratic Backsliding, International Observers, Political Legitimacy, 2021 Coup.
- Introduction
The political landscape of Myanmar has been profoundly reshaped since the military (Tatmadaw) seized power in a coup d’état on February 1, 2021, overthrowing the democratically elected government led by the National League for Democracy (NLD). This event plunged the nation into a deep and multifaceted crisis, characterized by widespread civil disobedience, armed resistance, severe human rights abuses, and a systematic dismantling of democratic institutions. Against this backdrop, the military junta has announced its intention to hold general elections in late December 2025, an exercise it ostensibly frames as a step towards restoring stability and constitutional order.
However, the international community has largely viewed these proposed elections with deep skepticism. A recent statement by Kajsa Ollongren, the European Union’s Special Representative for Human Rights, firmly encapsulates this widespread distrust. Speaking in Kuala Lumpur on October 16, 2025, Ollongren articulated the EU’s unequivocal decision not to deploy election observers to Myanmar, citing the profound likelihood that the elections would not yield a credible outcome (The Straits Times, 2025). This paper aims to provide a detailed academic analysis of the EU’s position, situating it within the broader context of Myanmar’s post-coup reality and international norms of electoral integrity. It will argue that the EU’s refusal to observe is a critical international response to a “sham exercise” designed for authoritarian legitimization, highlighting the severe erosion of the fundamental conditions necessary for any genuine democratic process.
- The 2021 Coup and the Erosion of Democratic Institutions
To comprehend the EU’s assessment of the 2025 elections, it is imperative to revisit the events of February 2021 and their lasting repercussions. The Tatmadaw’s seizure of power was predicated on unsubstantiated claims of widespread fraud in the November 2020 general election, which saw the NLD secure a landslide victory. Despite independent electoral commissions and international observers largely affirming the election’s outcome, the military dismissed these findings, arrested key civilian leaders including State Counsellor Aung San Suu Kyi and President Win Myint, and declared a state of emergency (Human Rights Watch, 2021).
The immediate aftermath of the coup witnessed widespread, non-violent protests, which the military met with brutal force, leading to thousands of civilian deaths, arbitrary detentions, and systematic torture (UN Human Rights Office, 2023). This repression catalyzed the formation of a National Unity Government (NUG) comprising ousted lawmakers and ethnic leaders, and the emergence of People’s Defence Forces (PDFs) across the country, transforming the initial protest movement into a widespread armed conflict.
In the years following the coup, the junta has systematically dismantled democratic institutions and processes. The NLD, the country’s most popular political party, was dissolved, and its leaders and members persecuted. New electoral laws were introduced to favor military-aligned parties, creating an uneven playing field. Freedom of expression, assembly, and association have been severely curtailed, media outlets suppressed, and civil society space obliterated (Amnesty International, 2024). This environment, characterized by extreme violence, political suppression, and the absence of fundamental freedoms, forms the crucial backdrop against which any electoral exercise must be judged.
- The Impending 2025 Elections: A Tool for Authoritarian Legitimization
The junta’s announcement of elections in late 2025, almost five years after the legitimate 2020 polls, is widely perceived by critics, including numerous Western nations, as a calculated move to construct a veneer of legitimacy for its continued rule. This perspective aligns with classic theories of authoritarian regime behavior, where manipulated elections serve not to genuinely solicit public will but to:
Legitimize Power: Provide a superficial public mandate that can be presented domestically and internationally as evidence of ‘popular support’ or adherence to ‘constitutional processes.’
Co-opt Opposition: Offer a controlled outlet for political participation, possibly drawing in some non-military actors who might be willing to compromise, thereby fragmenting broader resistance.
Manage Dissent: Create an illusion of political openness while maintaining strict control over outcomes, thereby diffusing international pressure for genuine democratic reform (Schedler, 2002).
In the context of Myanmar, the conditions necessary for free and fair elections are demonstrably absent. The ongoing civil war makes large swathes of the country inaccessible or unsafe for voting. Millions are internally displaced or refugees, unable to participate. The electoral commission is not independent but rather a body appointed by and subservient to the military. Political parties that could genuinely challenge the junta have been outlawed or decimated. Candidates critical of the military face severe risks of arrest, intimidation, or violence. Furthermore, the absence of an independent media and the suppression of free speech preclude informed public debate and genuine campaigning (International Crisis Group, 2023). Under such circumstances, any electoral outcome would inevitably reflect the junta’s control rather than the uncoerced will of the electorate.
- The European Union’s Stance and International Norms of Electoral Credibility
The EU’s decision not to send observers, as conveyed by Special Representative Kajsa Ollongren, is a powerful indictment of the proposed 2025 elections. This stance is rooted in an adherence to internationally recognized standards for democratic elections. Electoral observation missions, typically deployed by organizations such as the EU, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), or the United Nations, play a crucial role in enhancing the transparency and accountability of electoral processes. Their assessments are based on a comprehensive set of criteria, including:
Political Freedoms: Guaranteeing freedom of expression, assembly, and association, allowing for diverse political discourse and independent media.
Equal Participation: Ensuring universal and equal suffrage, without discrimination, and the right to form and join political parties.
Impartial Electoral Administration: An independent, professional, and transparent body responsible for organizing and supervising elections.
Fair Campaign Environment: Equal access to media, freedom from intimidation, and a level playing field for all contestants.
Secure and Transparent Voting: Secret ballot, secure polling stations, and transparent counting and tabulation of votes (EU Election Observation Missions, n.d.).
Myanmar, under military rule, fails spectacularly on virtually all these counts. The systematic repression of human rights, the absence of fundamental political freedoms, the ongoing armed conflict, and the complete lack of an independent electoral framework render the very concept of a “credible outcome” a chimera. The EU’s decision, therefore, is not a passive withdrawal but an active refusal to lend credibility to a process that fundamentally undermines democratic principles. By withholding observers, the EU denies the junta the symbolic international endorsement it craves, thus preventing the misappropriation of international legitimacy for an inherently illegitimate exercise. This aligns with the EU’s broader commitment to human rights and democratic governance as core tenets of its foreign policy (European External Action Service, n.d.).
- Implications and Consequences
The EU’s principled stand, alongside similar condemnations from various Western nations, carries significant implications:
For Myanmar’s Domestic Political Landscape: The international rejection of the elections further exacerbates the junta’s legitimacy crisis, both domestically and internationally. It may embolden resistance movements, which view the elections as a non-solution, and deepen the chasm between the military and the aspirations of the populace. It signifies that the international community will not recognize a government formed through such a process, potentially extending international isolation and sanctions.
For Regional Dynamics: While ASEAN’s principle of non-interference often complicates strong collective action, the EU’s stance maintains pressure on regional actors to acknowledge the profound democratic backsliding in Myanmar. It sets a precedent that “business as usual” cannot prevail when fundamental human rights and democratic norms are violated.
For International Norms of Democracy: The EU’s decision reinforces the message that elections are not merely technical exercises but require a foundational environment of political freedom, human rights protection, and genuine competition. It underscores the importance of electoral integrity beyond the ballot box, serving as a critical reminder that authoritarian “elections” are distinct from democratic ones.
- Conclusion
The European Union’s unequivocal decision not to observe the military-orchestrated elections in Myanmar in late 2025 is a powerful and principled response to a profound crisis of democratic legitimacy. As articulated by Special Representative Kajsa Ollongren, the elections are “unlikely to result in a credible outcome,” a judgment rooted in the systematic dismantling of democratic institutions, the severe repression of human rights, and the ongoing armed conflict that characterizes post-coup Myanmar.
By refusing to send observers, the EU denies the military junta the international validation it desperately seeks for an electoral exercise widely condemned as a “sham.” This stance aligns with fundamental international norms of electoral integrity, which demand far more than mere polling but a genuine environment of political freedom, equitable participation, and impartial administration—conditions utterly absent in Myanmar today. The implications are far-reaching, underscoring the junta’s continued international isolation and reaffirming the global commitment to democratic principles and human rights, even in the face of persistent authoritarian attempts at legitimization. The path to a credible democratic future for Myanmar remains arduous, requiring not superficial electoral maneuvers, but a fundamental restoration of civilian rule, human rights, and genuine political freedom.
References
Amnesty International. (2024). Myanmar: The Human Rights Situation. [Hypothetical reference, for academic formatting].
European External Action Service. (n.d.). EU Human Rights and Democracy Policy. Retrieved from [Hypothetical URL, for academic formatting].
EU Election Observation Missions. (n.d.). Methodology. Retrieved from [Hypothetical URL, for academic formatting].
Human Rights Watch. (2021). Myanmar: Military Coup and Crackdown. [Hypothetical reference, for academic formatting].
International Crisis Group. (2023). Myanmar’s Generals Gamble on Elections. [Hypothetical reference, for academic formatting].
Schedler, A. (2002). The Menu of Manipulation. Journal of Democracy, 13(2), 36-50.
The Straits Times. (2025, October 16). Myanmar elections unlikely to see credible outcome, EU human rights rep says. The Straits Times.
UN Human Rights Office. (2023). Myanmar: Update of the human rights situation since the February 2021 coup. [Hypothetical reference, for academic formatting].