Embedded Files
INSERT TEXT HERE
In Myanmar, an Election Doomed to Fail
In Myanmar, an Election Doomed to Fail
By JOEL SELWAY
SUPPLEMENTARY MAP: ETHNIC VOTING IN 2010 ELECTIONS
Despite international observers declaring the election to be neither free nor fair, distinct ethnic voting patterns could still be observed. Specifically, we see an unwillingness of the Burma military to deny minority ethnic groups representation in the new parliament. Alternatively, if we believed the election results as reflective of real public sentiment we could at least say that the “National”, Burman-dominated parties were less popular in minority areas.
Burman Majority Areas
58% of all constituencies
96% of seats won by the military-backed Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP)
Minority Areas
132 non-Burman dominant constituencies
43 seats won by ethnic minority parties
6 seats only won in constituencies where >10% Burman population (out of 41)
59% of seats won by the military-backed Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP)
90% of constituencies composed of a majority (>50% of the population) ethnic group
42% of constituencies composed solely of a single ethnic group
14% of all seats won by an ethnic minority party in 2010 elections
Joel Selway is Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science and Faculty Associate in the Asian Studies Program at the Kennedy Center for International Studies, Brigham Young University (Ph.D. University of Michigan, 2009). He can be contacted at joel_selwayATbyu.edu
He will be a Fulbright Scholar in Singapore in the 2012-13 academic year, was previously the recipient of a Fulbright-Hays Doctoral Research Grant to Thailand and has carried out research throughout Southeast and South Asia.
Chin (2-6.3% POP.) Chin parties won 4 seats in 40% of Chin dominated district and no votes in 2/10 or 20% of Chin dominated districts.
Kachin (1.5-3.1% POP.) Kachin parties won 1 seat in 9% of Kachin dominated districts and no votes in 10/11 or 91% of Kachin dominated districts
Karen (9-14.6% POP.) Karen parties won 7 seats in Karen dominated districts and won no votes in 15/22 or 68% of Karen dominated districts.
Mon (2-8% POP.) Mon & Wa parties won 5 seats in Mon-Khmer dominated districts and won no votes in 8/16 or 100% of Mon dominated districts.
Rakhine (3-5.5% POP.) Rakhine parties won 10 seats, representing 56% of Rakhine dominanted districts. Rakhine parties won no votes in 7/18 or 39% of districts.
Shan (8-9% POP.) Shan parties won 18 seats representing 40% of all Shan dominant districts. Shan parties won no votes in just 13/46 or just 28% of Shan dominanted districts.
Map sources compiled from data from Martin Smith (1999) "Burma: Insurgency and the Politics of Ethnicity", Hugh Tinker (1967) "The Union of Burma: A Study of the First Years of Independence" with constituency boundary information from the Alternative Asean Network on Burma. The author wishes to thank Jed Dunn for valuable assistance in compiling the map.
Population ranges are based on several sources: CIA World Factbook (2011), Martin Smith (1999), the Official 1931 Census in Enriquez (1933), Ethnologue (2011), Joshua Project (2011), Tinker (1967), and Lintner (2003).
The main points made in the op-ed along with a detailed narrative of the ethnic dynamics within the Burma legislature in the 1948-162 era can be found in the author's book-length manuscript entitled United They Stand, Represented They Fall (currently under review). More details here.
Google Sites
Report abuse