Issuing a warning last week that her planned tour of the country may result in “chaos and riots,” the government has ordered her to refrain from engaging in political activities. This incident is symptomatic of the government’s ongoing efforts to use the law as a tool in restricting the development of legitimate and genuine opposition in Burma. Evidence of these efforts can be found in numerous constitutional and statutory provisions.

Section 7 of the 2008 Constitution states that the Union of Burma practices a “genuine, disciplined, multi-party democratic system.” To this end, Section 39 states that “the Union shall enact necessary law to systematically form political parties for [the] flourishing of a genuine, disciplined, multi-party democratic system.” Further, in the run-up to the November 2010 election, the government repeatedly emphasized the importance of a multi-party system to Burma’s democratic ambitions.

To the contrary, the government has taken several steps over the last few years to curtail the ability of opposition groups to engage truly in the political process.

Section 407 of the Constitution, the “Right of Non-Existence of Political Parties,” states that “if a political party infringe[s] one of the following stipulations, it shall have no right of continued existence: (a) having been declared an unlawful organization under the existing law; (b) directly or indirectly contacting or abetting… the associations and persons determined by the Union…. to be an unlawful organization; (c) directly or indirectly receiving and expending financial, material and other assistance from a foreign government, a religious association, other association or a person from a foreign country; (d) abusing religion for [a] political purpose.”

These restrictions on political parties confer wide powers on the ruling government to pass laws restricting the activities of political organizations. Once the government determines that a party is an “unlawful organization,” has had contact with an “unlawful organization,” or has received support from any association deemed inappropriate by the government, that political party no longer has the right to exist. As a result, the government has the authority to arbitrarily restrict constitutional rights.

Prior to the 2010 election, the government passed several laws that had the effect of curtailing genuine multi-party democracy and limiting the rights of political parties under domestic legislation. For example, the Election Commission Law allowed the government to appoint allies of the military to the powerful Union Election Commission. Powers conferred on the Commission included the ability to prepare voters’ list, postpone and cancel elections in constituencies for “security reasons” and to form electoral courts. The appointed Commission, widely viewed as having a heavily biased membership, was also given the power to make “final” decisions on all electoral issues, including appeals cases heard by the electoral courts and all matters related to the Political Parties Registration Law.

The Political Parties Registration Law also curtailed efforts to promote a multi-party democracy. One example includes a provision banning anyone, including Aung San Suu Kyi and thousands of other political prisoners, convicted by a court of law from participating in elections.

Another provision, Section 12 (a), states that if a party has “been declared as an unlawful association under the existing law” it shall not be entitled to operate as a political party. In addition, political parties were given a short time frame in which to apply to the Commission to be registered as a political party. Those, unwilling, or unable, to register with the Commission were to be “presumed automatically null and void.”

The activities of parties during the campaign were also heavily restricted. The Union Election Commission’s Directive 2/2010, for example, imposed restrictions on political activities such as forcing parties to apply a week in advance for permission to hold gatherings, barring the chanting of slogans, marching or carrying flags, giving speeches or publishing materials that could “tarnish” the image of the state, criticizing the Constitution or harming community peace.

These laws clearly demonstrate how the government has used domestic law as a means to justify arbitrary decisions restricting the rights of opposition groups. 
 
Recently, efforts to limit the political mobility of Aung San Suu Kyi are no different. The government has indicated that the political activities of the Nobel Peace Prize-winning politician’s National League for Democracy (NLD) party are in contravention of domestic law. The government does not recognize the NLD as a political party and, therefore, indicates that the “political activities,” such maintaining party buildings, erecting signs, issuing statements and meeting with other organizations, are not permissible. Though several legal arguments have been made to contest the government’s position that the NLD is legally defunct (for example, that only the Pyidaungsu Hluttaw can make laws with respect to political parties), the current case of the NLD highlights how the government arbitrarily applies laws to restrict opposition parties.

Security issues that could stem from the proposed tour of Aung San Suu Kyi also remain an alleged concern for the government. Section 354 allows for the rights to expression, assembly and association to be restricted for the purpose of “law and order, community peace and tranquility or public order and morality,” enabling the government to capriciously restrict the political activities of Aung San Suu Kyi, the NLD and other opposition groups.

However, in 2003, when the NLD leader made a similar tour, it was a government-sponsored mob, not those aligned with the NLD, which caused the death of at least 70 people when they attacked her motorcade. It is likely that the feared “chaos and riots” coming from the proposed tour will be a result of government interference in the activities of the woman regarded as being the face of Burma’s pro-democracy movement.

Restrictions on Burmese opposition groups are not a new phenomenon. Post-independence, the rights of many political opposition groups were curtailed. Under General Ne Win, the government transitioned to a one-party state wherein opposition groups were violently suppressed. Throughout the SLORC and SPDC periods, similar oppression occurred.

Now, it seems as though Burma has entered a new period of political oppression in which domestic laws that grant unbridled power to the government and enable top government officials to ignore the rule of law, will be used to limit the activities of opposition groups.

Current domestic law allows the government to make decisions with impunity. As a result, it is not unlikely that Aung San Suu Kyi’s tour will be used as an opportunity for the government to restrict the legitimate activities of opposition groups and individuals. The current government’s restrictions mark another chapter in the Burmese government’s use of authority to preclude the emergence of legitimate opposition and, therefore, the emergence of genuine multi-party democracy.