Part 17. The 2015 Election, Rohingya Political Exclusion and the Beginnings of Armed Mobilisation in Arakan
Chapter 2. The Exclusion of Rohingya Candidates and Political Representation
The exclusion of Rohingya parliamentary candidates in 2015 closed another avenue through which the community could seek protection and challenge government policy. This chapter examines that process: the rejection of nominations, the treatment of supporting documents, the limitations of appeals and the responses of Rohingya organisations.
The affected candidates included a sitting member of Parliament, experienced political organisers and people who had previously been accepted as eligible to contest elections. Their cases raised a fundamental question: how could authorities recognise someone’s eligibility in one election and reject it in the next under the same legal rules? The European Union’s election observers identified a stricter interpretation of citizenship requirements as a major reason for the exclusions.
Citizenship of Parents as a Barrier to Candidacy
Eligibility involved more than a candidate’s own citizenship. Parliamentary candidates also had to satisfy requirements concerning the citizenship of their parents at the time of their birth. For Rohingya applicants, the scrutiny of family status became a decisive barrier.
The EU observer mission recorded 99 initial rejections across Myanmar. After appeals and reviews reversed 24 decisions, 75 candidates remained excluded; 32 were Muslim. These figures cover candidates nationally and should not be read as a count of Rohingya applicants alone. Nevertheless, they demonstrate the disproportionate impact on Muslim political participation.
A requirement presented as an administrative qualification therefore had consequences for political representation. Candidates could be excluded before voters had any opportunity to assess their policies, experience or suitability for office.
Shwe Maung: A Sitting Representative Prevented from Standing
One of the clearest cases concerned Shwe Maung, the Rohingya parliamentarian elected in 2010 to represent Buthidaung in northern Arakan. He had entered Parliament through the Union Solidarity and Development Party, but sought to contest the 2015 election as an independent after the party did not nominate him.
Election authorities rejected his application on the ground that his parents had not been citizens when he was born. Shwe Maung disputed this. He stated that both parents were citizens before his birth in 1965 and pointed to his father’s service in the Burma Police Force.
His previous election did not, by itself, settle every legal question about a subsequent nomination. It did, however, make the new decision particularly troubling: the authorities were denying eligibility to someone already serving in the legislature. His exclusion also threatened the continuation of a parliamentary voice that had spoken about Rohingya citizenship and rights.
An Appeal Without an Effective Hearing
The handling of Shwe Maung’s appeal deepened concern about the fairness of the process.
ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights reported that the local election commission rejected his nomination on 22 August 2015. The Rakhine State Election Commission subsequently upheld the decision. Cambodian parliamentarian Son Chhay attended the appeal proceedings in Sittwe and reported that Shwe Maung was not allowed to speak or present his evidence.
Shwe Maung maintained that he possessed documents establishing his parents’ citizenship. According to the parliamentarians’ account, the proceedings provided an announcement of the decision rather than a meaningful opportunity to challenge it. The organisation also raised the case with Union Election Commission chairman Tin Aye.
An appeal cannot provide an effective remedy if the person affected cannot explain the relevant records or answer the allegation against them. For Rohingya candidates, this procedural failure mattered as much as the original rejection.
Other Candidates and the Documentary Evidence
Shwe Maung’s experience was part of a wider pattern. Khin Khin Lwin, an independent candidate seeking an Upper House seat for Buthidaung, was also rejected over her parents’ citizenship. Her case showed that the exclusions affected different parliamentary contests and extended beyond one prominent male politician.
Fortify Rights and United to End Genocide later documented their involvement in the appeals. Their May 2016 report stated that Fortify Rights accompanied Shwe Maung and Khin Khin Lwin to the Rakhine election commission in August 2015, where officials refused to review supporting documentation.
The organisations also examined records belonging to Shwe Maung and Abdul Rasheed, a Democracy and Human Rights Party candidate. They concluded that the documents appeared to establish the relevant family citizenship qualifications. This was the assessment of the investigators, rather than a judicial determination, but it directly challenged the explanation that the candidates simply lacked evidence of eligibility.
Selective Scrutiny and Unequal Procedures
The Carter Center’s observation report identified broader problems with candidate scrutiny. Applicants were not examined consistently, and indications of foreign ancestry—including physical appearance—could prompt additional investigation.
It also found inadequate safeguards in both initial decisions and appeals. The role of immigration officials was unclear, explanations from election officials were contradictory, and documents concerning parents’ citizenship had not been requested when nominations were submitted. Some candidates were denied an opportunity to attend and defend their cases.
At the state and regional appeal stage, only one citizenship-based disqualification was overturned. A later Union Election Commission review restored additional candidates, but the Carter Center found that the selection of cases and reasons for the decisions lacked transparency. Only one of the reinstated candidates came from the 29 initially rejected in Rakhine State.
These findings support a criticism of the process itself: candidates faced consequential decisions without consistent standards or reliable opportunities to contest them.
Rohingya Political Parties Under Pressure
Candidate exclusions also threatened the organisations through which Rohingya politicians sought to participate.
On 1 September 2015, The Irrawaddy reported that 17 of the Democracy and Human Rights Party’s 18 proposed candidates had been rejected. Party chairman Kyaw Min warned that, if the appeals failed, the party would be left with only one candidate and could face deregistration because parties were required to contest at least three constituencies.
This was a warning about a possible consequence, not confirmation that deregistration had already occurred. Nevertheless, it exposed how individual nomination decisions could endanger an entire political organisation. Kyaw Min, himself elected in 1990, challenged the rejection of candidates whose citizenship qualifications had previously been accepted.
The National Development and Peace Party faced a similar barrier. The EU mission’s final report recorded that all six of its prospective candidates were disqualified, leaving the party unable to contest the election.
Rohingya Organisations Challenged the Exclusions
Rohingya organisations publicly contested the decisions while nominations and appeals were still at issue.
Kaladan Press reported a joint statement issued by eleven European Rohingya organisations on 28 August 2015. It highlighted the exclusions of Shwe Maung, Kyaw Min and Abu Taher, presenting them as experienced public figures rather than people newly seeking entry into political life.
The report recalled Kyaw Min’s service as a teacher and education officer, his election in 1990 and his involvement in the Committee Representing the People’s Parliament. It also described Abu Taher as a graduate of the Yangon Institute of Technology who had previously qualified as an election candidate. These details formed part of the organisations’ challenge to the official citizenship allegations.
The joint statement, signed by organisations including the Arakan Rohingya National Organisation, characterised the decisions as a policy of exclusion. Its signatories rejected the allegations concerning the candidates’ parents and called for the Election Commission to reconsider the decisions. They also urged international pressure on the government to protect Rohingya participation.
The organisations interpreted the exclusions as part of a broader effort to remove Rohingya from public life and their homeland. That interpretation should be recorded as their contemporary assessment, alongside the specific procedural failures subsequently documented by observers.
Calls for International Scrutiny
A further joint statement, dated 29 September 2015, condemned the Union Election Commission’s decisions. Its signatories included the Rohingya Federation of Arakan, the European Rohingya Council and Rohingya organisations in India, Canada and Japan.
They addressed the United Nations, ASEAN, the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, foreign governments and election observers. Their central question was whether an election could be judged free and fair while Rohingya were excluded from meaningful participation.
The statement also raised individual cases, including Shwe Maung and Abu Tahay, and challenged the failure of appeals to restore participation. It demonstrates that Rohingya organisations were actively seeking institutional remedies and international scrutiny before election day. Their objections were contemporary warnings, rather than criticisms constructed only after the results were known.
The Closing of Representative Channels
The significance of these exclusions extended beyond the ambitions of individual candidates. Removing a candidate could deprive a community of someone able to question officials, raise grievances in Parliament and seek public answers from government institutions.
For Rohingya, the loss was therefore institutional as well as personal. Experienced representatives were prevented from seeking renewed mandates, political parties faced barriers to maintaining their electoral presence, and documentary challenges did not consistently receive effective hearings.
The record does not require treating every rejected nomination as identical. It does require recognising the combined effect of selective scrutiny, contested citizenship findings and inadequate appeals. Together, these practices narrowed the space in which Rohingya could pursue political representation through the election system.