Case Study: A Military-Orchestrated Electoral Exercise
Context and Background
Myanmar’s military junta is proceeding with a multi-phase general election starting December 28, 2025, despite an ongoing civil war that has engulfed much of the country. This election follows the February 2021 coup that overthrew the democratically elected government of Aung San Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy (NLD) party.
Key Characteristics of the Election
Structural Design: The election is designed to favor military control through multiple mechanisms. Twenty-five percent of parliamentary seats are constitutionally reserved for military appointees, ensuring the armed forces maintain veto power over key decisions. The electoral system has been changed from the previous plurality system to a mixed approach combining first-past-the-post, proportional representation, and mixed-member proportional systems.
Limited Participation: Only six parties are competing nationally, with 51 contesting within single regions or states. The military’s proxy party, the Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP), is fielding 1,018 candidates representing roughly one-fifth of all registered candidates. The NLD and dozens of other parties have been dissolved, while anti-junta forces refuse participation.
Geographic Constraints: Voting will occur in only 202 of Myanmar’s 330 townships during the first two phases, with a possible third phase later in January. Junta chief Min Aung Hlaing has acknowledged the polls will not be nationwide due to ongoing conflict, effectively disenfranchising large portions of the population in contested areas.
Presidential Selection Process: Under the 2008 constitution, three electoral colleges will nominate presidential candidates, with military-appointed lawmakers controlling one college entirely. This structure virtually guarantees the military’s preferred candidate will become president.
International Positioning
The junta has faced widespread condemnation from the United Nations, Western governments, and human rights organizations, who characterize the election as illegitimate. However, Myanmar’s military has secured backing from key regional powers including China, Russia, and India. Junta spokesperson Zaw Min Tun dismissed international criticism, stating the election is being conducted for Myanmar’s people rather than the international community.
Outlook: Short-term and Long-term Scenarios
Short-term Projections (2025-2027)
Political Trajectory: The election will likely result in a USDP-dominated legislature that provides a veneer of civilian governance while maintaining military supremacy. With 25% guaranteed military seats and expected USDP victories, the junta will control presidential selection, government formation, and key appointments.
Continued Conflict: The civil war shows no signs of abating. Ethnic armed organizations and People’s Defense Forces continue to control significant territory, and the election may actually intensify resistance as it’s viewed as an attempt to legitimize military rule. Expect escalating violence in contested regions where voting cannot occur.
Economic Deterioration: Myanmar’s economy has contracted significantly since the coup. The illegitimate election is unlikely to restore international confidence or lift sanctions. Foreign investment will remain minimal, currency instability will persist, and humanitarian conditions will worsen in conflict zones.
Regional Diplomacy: ASEAN faces a continued dilemma in engaging with Myanmar. While the election provides a potential justification for re-engagement, the bloc’s credibility is at stake if it legitimizes what most observers consider a sham process. Expect continued internal divisions within ASEAN regarding Myanmar policy.
Medium to Long-term Scenarios (2028-2035)
Scenario A – Protracted Stalemate: The most likely scenario involves years of grinding conflict with no clear victor. The military retains control of major cities and economic centers while resistance forces hold rural and border areas. Myanmar becomes a fragmented state with parallel governance structures, similar to Syria or Libya. The humanitarian crisis deepens with millions displaced and economic collapse accelerating.
Scenario B – Military Consolidation: If the junta receives sustained support from China and Russia, including advanced weaponry and economic assistance, it could gradually regain territorial control. However, even successful military operations would face persistent insurgency. This scenario requires the military to address economic collapse and provide basic services, which seems unlikely given their track record and international isolation.
Scenario C – Federal Transition: A negotiated settlement leads to a genuinely federal system that accommodates ethnic armed organizations’ demands for autonomy. This would require the military to make significant concessions, possibly under intense Chinese pressure motivated by economic interests and border stability concerns. While this represents the best outcome for Myanmar’s people, it appears the least probable given the military’s historical intransigence.
Scenario D – Complete State Collapse: Continued conflict and economic deterioration could lead to Myanmar’s fragmentation into de facto independent regions controlled by ethnic armed organizations, the military-controlled center, and resistance-held territories. This would create a massive humanitarian catastrophe and regional security crisis with implications for human trafficking, drug trade, and refugee flows.
Solutions: Addressing the Myanmar Crisis
Immediate Interventions
Humanitarian Access Corridors: The international community should negotiate humanitarian corridors to deliver aid to conflict-affected populations regardless of which faction controls territory. Cross-border aid from Thailand, India, Bangladesh, and China could save lives while maintaining political neutrality.
Targeted Sanctions Enforcement: Western countries should strengthen enforcement of existing sanctions targeting military leadership and their economic interests, while ensuring humanitarian exemptions function effectively. Closing loopholes that allow military-linked businesses to operate internationally can increase pressure for negotiations.
Unified ASEAN Approach: Southeast Asian nations must move beyond the current paralysis and adopt a unified strategy that balances engagement with accountability. This could involve conditional re-engagement tied to concrete progress on the Five-Point Consensus agreed upon in April 2021, which the junta has largely ignored.
Documentation of Atrocities: International bodies should continue systematically documenting human rights violations to support future accountability mechanisms, whether through the International Criminal Court or other tribunals. This creates long-term pressure even if immediate justice seems unattainable.
Medium-term Strategies
Economic Pressure Calibration: Sanctions should target military revenues while minimizing harm to ordinary citizens. This means focusing on extractive industries (jade, gems, timber) and military-controlled enterprises rather than broad economic sanctions. Banking sector restrictions should target military-linked institutions specifically.
Support for Legitimate Opposition: The international community should provide diplomatic recognition and support to the National Unity Government (NUG), Myanmar’s parallel government formed by ousted lawmakers and ethnic representatives. This support should include capacity building, diplomatic platforms, and possibly humanitarian assistance channels.
Regional Security Cooperation: Border countries face spillover effects including refugee flows, cross-border conflict, and trafficking. Coordinated regional approaches to border management, refugee protection, and transnational crime would serve mutual interests while maintaining humanitarian principles.
Civil Society Strengthening: International organizations should support Myanmar’s diaspora communities, independent media, and civil society organizations working to document conditions, provide education, and maintain democratic aspirations. These groups represent Myanmar’s future leadership regardless of how the current crisis resolves.
Long-term Solutions: Building Sustainable Peace
Constitutional Reform Framework
Any sustainable solution must address Myanmar’s fundamental governance crisis through genuine constitutional reform. The 2008 constitution, drafted by the military, entrenches military privilege and makes democratic governance impossible. A new constitutional process must include:
Inclusive National Dialogue: Bringing together the military, ethnic armed organizations, pro-democracy forces, and civil society in sustained negotiations. This requires credible mediation, possibly by the United Nations with ASEAN support, and guaranteed security for participants.
Federal System Design: Ethnic armed organizations have fought for decades seeking autonomy and self-determination. A genuinely federal system that grants substantial authority to states and regions could address these grievances while maintaining national unity. This would involve revenue sharing, regional security forces, cultural rights protections, and democratic local governance.
Demilitarization of Politics: Phasing out reserved military seats in parliament and establishing genuine civilian control over the armed forces. This would require security sector reform including military restructuring, vetting processes, justice for past abuses, and integration of some ethnic armed organization fighters into reformed security forces.
Transitional Justice Mechanisms: Establishing accountability for atrocities committed by all parties while balancing justice with reconciliation. This could involve truth commissions, criminal prosecutions for the most serious crimes, reparations for victims, and institutional reforms to prevent future abuses.
Economic Reconstruction and Development
Myanmar’s economic recovery requires addressing immediate humanitarian needs while building foundations for sustainable development:
Immediate Economic Stabilization: Once political settlement is achieved, emergency economic assistance would be necessary to stabilize the currency, restore basic services, and address humanitarian needs. This would require coordinated international support possibly channeled through multilateral institutions.
Infrastructure Rebuilding: Years of conflict have devastated infrastructure in many areas. Reconstruction must be inclusive, reaching all regions and communities, and designed to support equitable development rather than benefiting only military-controlled areas or major cities.
Economic Diversification: Myanmar’s economy has been overly dependent on extractive industries often controlled by military cronies. Developing manufacturing, agriculture, services, and technology sectors with international investment would create employment and reduce dependence on resources vulnerable to elite capture.
Inclusive Economic Governance: Ensuring ethnic minority regions benefit from economic development in their areas, particularly from natural resources. Resource revenue sharing agreements must be transparent and enforceable, with mechanisms for local communities to participate in decisions affecting their lands.
Education and Social Cohesion
National Education Reform: Myanmar’s education system has perpetuated ethnic divisions and military propaganda. Comprehensive reform would include multicultural curricula, ethnic language instruction, accurate history teaching, and promotion of critical thinking rather than rote learning and nationalist indoctrination.
Interfaith and Interethnic Dialogue: Systematic programs bringing together different communities to address prejudices and build understanding. This is particularly crucial given the military’s use of Buddhist nationalism and anti-Rohingya propaganda to maintain support.
Youth Engagement: Myanmar has a young population that has experienced primarily military rule and conflict. Investing in youth education, employment, and political participation is essential for long-term stability and democratic consolidation.
Regional Integration and International Support
ASEAN Centrality: Myanmar’s sustainable future requires constructive engagement with Southeast Asia. Once genuine political transition begins, ASEAN can facilitate reintegration through economic cooperation, capacity building, and diplomatic support while maintaining pressure for continued reform.
Strategic Partnership Development: Myanmar needs diverse international partnerships to avoid overdependence on any single power. Balanced relationships with China, India, Japan, Western countries, and ASEAN neighbors would provide economic opportunities while maintaining strategic autonomy.
International Guarantees: Major reforms and settlements would benefit from international guarantees and monitoring. UN peacekeeping forces might be necessary during transitions, while international observers could monitor elections, human rights, and agreement implementation.
Singapore’s Impact and Interests
Direct Economic Interests
Singapore has substantial economic connections to Myanmar that are affected by the ongoing crisis:
Investment Exposure: Singaporean companies have invested significantly in Myanmar across sectors including telecommunications, banking, real estate, and manufacturing. These investments face uncertain futures under continued military rule and conflict. Companies must navigate reputational risks associated with operating in Myanmar while weighing economic interests.
Trade Relations: Myanmar represents both a market and source of imports for Singapore, though trade volumes are relatively modest compared to Singapore’s overall commerce. Disruption in Myanmar affects regional supply chains and Singapore’s role as a trading hub.
Financial Sector Concerns: Singapore’s financial center has been used by Myanmar military elites and their business associates. International pressure for sanctions enforcement creates compliance challenges for Singaporean banks and financial institutions, requiring robust due diligence and potential restrictions on Myanmar-related transactions.
Regional Security Implications
ASEAN Credibility and Unity: Myanmar’s crisis represents ASEAN’s most significant test in decades. Singapore has supported the Five-Point Consensus but faces a dilemma between upholding ASEAN’s principles and maintaining the organization’s unity. How ASEAN handles Myanmar affects the bloc’s credibility with major powers and its ability to address future crises.
Refugee and Migration Pressures: While Singapore is geographically distant from Myanmar and unlikely to receive significant refugee flows directly, regional instability affects Southeast Asian migration patterns. Large-scale displacement to Thailand, Malaysia, and Bangladesh creates humanitarian burdens on neighboring countries and potential secondary migration pressures.
Transnational Crime: State collapse or protracted conflict in Myanmar exacerbates drug trafficking, human trafficking, cybercrime, and arms smuggling. These criminal networks can extend throughout Southeast Asia, affecting Singapore’s security environment and requiring enhanced cooperation with regional partners.
Great Power Competition: Myanmar sits at the intersection of Chinese and Indian spheres of influence, with Western interests also at stake. How the Myanmar crisis resolves affects regional power dynamics. Singapore’s interests lie in maintaining ASEAN centrality and avoiding a situation where Myanmar becomes a proxy battleground or falls entirely into any single great power’s orbit.
Policy Considerations for Singapore
Balancing Principles and Pragmatism: Singapore faces a classic foreign policy dilemma between upholding principles of sovereignty and non-interference versus responding to a clear democratic reversal and humanitarian crisis. Singapore has generally supported ASEAN’s engagement efforts while avoiding unilateral sanctions, reflecting this balance.
Economic Due Diligence: Singaporean authorities and companies should maintain rigorous compliance with international sanctions and avoid transactions that benefit Myanmar’s military elite. This protects Singapore’s reputation as a responsible financial center while acknowledging legitimate business activities may continue in ways that don’t support the junta.
Humanitarian Contributions: Singapore can provide humanitarian assistance to Myanmar’s affected populations through international organizations, supporting health, education, and basic needs without legitimizing the military government. This aligns with Singapore’s values while maintaining principled distance from the junta.
ASEAN Leadership: As a founding ASEAN member with diplomatic experience and resources, Singapore can continue working behind the scenes to maintain ASEAN unity on Myanmar while pushing for more meaningful implementation of the Five-Point Consensus. This includes supporting the Special Envoy’s efforts and encouraging dialogue among ASEAN members with different Myanmar policies.
Long-term Strategic Planning: Regardless of how Myanmar’s crisis resolves, Singapore should prepare for various scenarios ranging from continued military rule to democratic transition or state fragmentation. Each scenario has different implications for trade, investment, security cooperation, and regional architecture. Scenario planning and flexible policies will serve Singapore’s interests in an uncertain environment.
Diaspora Engagement: Singapore hosts a Myanmar diaspora community including students, workers, and refugees from the crisis. Engaging with this community respectfully while maintaining legal frameworks provides Singapore with insights into Myanmar’s situation and positions the country to support eventual reconstruction and reconciliation.
Conclusion
Myanmar’s junta election represents an attempt to legitimize military rule through a fundamentally flawed process that excludes genuine opposition and disenfranchises millions. The outlook remains bleak, with protracted conflict the most likely scenario in the absence of dramatic political shifts or sustained international pressure.
Solutions exist but require sustained commitment from multiple stakeholders. The international community must maintain pressure through sanctions and support for legitimate opposition while keeping humanitarian channels open. Regional powers, particularly China, must decide whether short-term stability through military support serves their long-term interests better than pushing for inclusive political settlement. Most importantly, Myanmar’s own people, including ethnic armed organizations, pro-democracy forces, and even elements within the military, must ultimately find ways to negotiate a shared future.
For Singapore, the crisis presents challenges to economic interests, regional stability, and ASEAN’s credibility. Singapore’s approach should balance pragmatic engagement with principled positions, supporting ASEAN unity while pushing for meaningful progress on democratic principles and humanitarian access. The Myanmar crisis will likely persist for years, requiring sustained diplomatic engagement and flexible policies that can adapt to changing circumstances while upholding core values of peace, stability, and human dignity.