Fair Observer’s Video Producer Rohan Khattar Singh speaks with Daniel Sullivan, Director for Africa, Asia, and the Middle East at Refugees International, about Myanmar’s planned December 28 election and why only a handful of observers believe it represents a return to civilian rule. Since the 2021 military coup, the country has remained locked in conflict, repression and humanitarian collapse. Sullivan explains how the junta is using elections to manufacture legitimacy, why regional actors are misreading the moment and what the international community should do to avoid deepening instability.

A country at war with itself

Khattar Singh opens by situating the election in Myanmar’s post-coup existence. In February 2021, the military seized power after the National League for Democracy won a landslide victory, triggering nationwide resistance and armed conflict. Large parts of the country are no longer under central control. Airstrikes, arrests and censorship continue across junta-held areas.

Sullivan finds it “very hard to imagine” these conditions producing anything resembling a free or fair vote. The military continues active combat against ethnic resistance groups, suppresses political organizing and controls information flows. The absence of accountability for past atrocities, especially the genocide against Myanmar’s Rohingya people, further undermines any claim to legitimacy. More than a million Rohingya remain stranded in refugee camps in Bangladesh, unable to return to homes that are still unsafe.

Elections as a tool of control

Khattar Singh presses on whether the vote is meant to restore legitimacy or simply consolidate power. Sullivan answers bluntly: “It’s absolutely [an] attempt to grab … legitimacy.” The process responds partly to external pressure, particularly from countries such as China that want a more predictable governing structure to protect their interests.

The rules of the election, however, are designed to guarantee military dominance. The most popular parties from the pre-coup period are barred, the National League for Democracy party is dissolved and its leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, remains under detention. Protesters and potential opposition candidates face arrest. Even before ballots are cast, the constitution reserves 25% of parliamentary seats for the military, while most registered candidates are tied directly to the junta.

This is a familiar playbook: Elections staged to project an image of civilian governance without surrendering real power. Even a single polling station — potentially on a military base — could be used to claim territorial legitimacy. Without independent observers or real competition, the vote becomes an administrative exercise rather than a democratic one.

A deepening humanitarian emergency

Beyond politics, Sullivan emphasizes the scale of human suffering. More than 3.5 million people are internally displaced, and roughly one-third of Myanmar’s population now requires humanitarian assistance. Aid delivery remains extremely difficult due to ongoing fighting and restrictions imposed by the military.

Drawing on his fieldwork, Sullivan says communities most affected by violence see the election as a sham. For Rohingya refugees, the same military responsible for their expulsion is now asking for recognition as a legitimate government. In conflict-affected states such as Kachin and Rakhine, many ethnic groups believe continued resistance is the only way to protect their populations. Even in junta-controlled areas, political participation is constrained by fear and repression, leaving little public confidence in the process.

Regional miscalculations and global neglect

Khattar Singh turns to the regional picture, asking whether the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) can use the election to stabilize the country. Sullivan is skeptical. ASEAN’s five-point consensus, announced soon after the coup, has gone unmet as fighting and airstrikes continue. He argues that granting legitimacy to the vote would only reward intransigence and encourage further abuses.

China and India both have strong economic stakes in Myanmar, from infrastructure corridors to ports. Sullivan acknowledges their interest in stability but warns that Beijing’s belief that elections will calm the situation is misplaced. In his view, recognition would likely increase instability and fuel further refugee flows into neighboring states, including India and Bangladesh.

Internationally, Myanmar has slipped from headlines as wars in Ukraine and Gaza dominate attention. Sullivan points to worrying signals in the United States, where South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem cited the election when announcing an end to Temporary Protected Status for people from Burma. He calls this a “false narrative” that misrepresents conditions on the ground. At the same time, he notes bipartisan condemnation in Congress, ongoing sanctions in Europe and continued documentation of abuses through a United Nations investigative mechanism.

What should happen next

Sullivan closes by outlining what he believes the international response must be. Governments should refuse to recognize the election, maintain diplomatic pressure backed by sanctions and prioritize accountability through international legal mechanisms. He also notes that uncertainty extends even within the military itself, where questions remain about whether junta leader Min Aung Hlaing can consolidate power or whether internal fractures may emerge.

The stakes are clear: treating this vote as legitimate would not move Myanmar toward peace. It would entrench military rule, prolong conflict and deepen one of the region’s worst humanitarian crises.

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.