Myanmar Junta Holds Second Phase of Election Widely Decried as a ‘Sham Exercise’

If you’ve been following Myanmar’s political turmoil, you probably heard the news: the military junta just held the second phase of its general election, and once again, critics are calling it a “sham exercise.” From the United Nations to human rights organizations, almost everyone outside the junta is dismissing this vote as a carefully orchestrated performance rather than a genuine democratic process.
Let’s take a closer look at what happened, why it’s being condemned, and what this means for Myanmar’s future.
A Military-Run Election in a Nation at War
On 11 January 2026, voters in certain parts of Myanmar lined up at polling stations to cast their ballots in the second phase of the election. This phase covered roughly 100 townships across 12 states and regions, part of a three-phase plan that began in December 2025 and will conclude in late January.
Sounds orderly enough—but here’s the catch: large areas of Myanmar are still controlled by armed opposition groups or trapped in active conflict zones. In many townships, voting didn’t even happen because it was too dangerous. For millions of citizens, the idea of participating in this election isn’t about choice—it’s about survival.
So, while the junta presents this as a return to political normalcy, the reality is much messier. This vote is happening amid ongoing civil war, instability, and widespread human suffering.
Who’s on the Ballot? And Who Isn’t
One of the biggest issues with this election is who is allowed to run.
Aung San Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy (NLD)—the party that won a landslide in the 2020 election—is banned. Suu Kyi herself remains detained on politically motivated charges.
Many smaller opposition parties have also been barred from participating.
Rebel groups and youth movements have refused to take part, calling the vote illegitimate.
This has left the military-backed Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP) as the clear front-runner. In the first phase of voting in December, the USDP already secured nearly 90 of 102 contested seats, which is a strong indicator that the outcome of the overall election is practically predetermined.
In short, this is less an election and more a political tool for the junta to cement power.
The Junta’s Playbook
For the military, these elections serve multiple purposes:
Legitimacy: By holding elections, the junta hopes to claim that it has public support.
Control: With opposition parties banned, the military ensures it dominates Parliament.
International Image: They want the world to see a functioning democratic process—even if it’s staged.
But the global community isn’t buying it. The United Nations, human rights organizations, and most Western governments have condemned the elections as neither free nor fair. Key issues include:
Widespread political repression
Absence of meaningful opposition
Election laws that stifle dissent
Unsafe conditions for voters
UN Special Rapporteur Tom Andrews even warned that the elections “cannot and should not be recognized” internationally.
Voices from the Ground: Fear, Frustration, and Exclusion
For everyday citizens, voting is complicated. Many are intimidated or fear retribution if they don’t comply. Others live in conflict zones or have been displaced, making voting physically impossible.
Ethnic groups and youth activists are particularly vocal about rejecting the elections. For them, the vote is a tool to marginalize minority communities and entrench military rule. Meanwhile, ordinary voters express mixed feelings—some participate out of hope for peace, others because they feel they have no choice.
The reality? The election process is fragmented, forced, and disconnected from the lives of most Burmese citizens.
International Reactions: Mostly Negative
Around the world, reaction to Myanmar’s elections has been overwhelmingly critical. The UN, Western governments, and human rights organizations argue that the polls are designed to prop up an authoritarian regime, not reflect the will of the people.
Civil society groups in Asia have also condemned the election, urging countries not to recognize the results. The junta’s international supporters, however—countries like China and Russia—may continue diplomatic engagement, making it harder to isolate the regime completely.
The key takeaway? While the junta may claim legitimacy, global acceptance is far from guaranteed.
Looking Ahead: What Happens Next?
The final phase of voting is scheduled for 25 January 2026, and it’s expected to follow the same patterns: military dominance, restricted opposition, and contested legitimacy.
If the junta consolidates power through this election, it will likely form a government that appears “elected” on paper but remains authoritarian in practice. Yet the ongoing civil war, international criticism, and domestic opposition suggest that Myanmar’s road to stability is still far away.
For observers inside and outside the country, these elections are less about democracy and more about power. The military hopes to create a façade of legitimacy, but the reality on the ground tells a very different story: one of fear, division, and a population yearning for genuine representation.This blog version is more readable, flows naturally, and keeps the key facts intact, while meeting Vocal Media’s style of a narrative, accessible, and conversational article.
If you want, I can also add a sidebar timeline showing all three phases of Myanmar’s 2025–26 elections to make it extra engaging for readers. It would fit perfectly for a blog format. Do you want me to do that?
Conclusion
Myanmar’s second-phase election may look like a step toward democracy on paper, but in reality, it’s a highly controlled, military-managed process with limited participation and credibility. With opposition voices silenced, ongoing conflict, and millions of citizens excluded, the so-called vote is widely regarded as a sham exercise.
For the people of Myanmar, the future remains uncertain. While the junta may claim victory, the country’s deep political, social, and ethnic fractures mean that true democracy and stability are still a long way off.
This election is a reminder that sometimes, the act of voting alone doesn’t equal democracy—especially when freedom, fairness, and choice are nowhere to be found.