Part 17. The 2015 Election, Rohingya Political Exclusion and the Beginnings of Armed Mobilisation in Arakan
Chapter 1. The Withdrawal of Voting Rights before the 2015 Election
Before Myanmar’s general election of 8 November 2015, hundreds of thousands of Rohingya lost the right to vote. People who had participated in earlier elections were excluded through decisions taken during the same year that Myanmar’s political transition attracted growing international attention. Human Rights Watch documented the withdrawal as a measure directed at Rohingya that also disenfranchised other minorities. For the affected communities, the approaching election offered political change without an opportunity to help determine it.
The exclusion developed through several connected measures: an abrupt decision to invalidate temporary registration certificates, a constitutional ruling against their holders’ participation in a proposed referendum, and amendments removing them from the parliamentary election laws. Understanding this sequence matters because the withdrawal of voting rights was a deliberate change to existing arrangements, rather than the simple continuation of a longstanding electoral prohibition.
An Existing Right Was Withdrawn
Temporary registration certificates, commonly called “white cards,” did not provide full citizenship. Nevertheless, their holders had been eligible to participate in the 2008 constitutional referendum, the 2010 general election and the 2012 by-elections. The distinction between citizenship recognition and electoral eligibility had therefore existed within Myanmar’s own electoral arrangements. The government had accepted these documents for voting before deciding to invalidate them in 2015.
Political participation was already being narrowed before the presidential decision. UN Special Rapporteur Yanghee Lee reported that amendments to the Political Parties Registration Law took effect on 30 September 2014. These restricted the formation of parties to full citizens and membership to full and naturalised citizens, excluding temporary certificate holders. She identified parties formed by politicians who described themselves as Rohingya as particularly vulnerable to the changes. Restrictions on political organisation thus preceded the removal of voting eligibility.
The February Referendum Decision and Its Reversal
On 2 February 2015, Parliament approved a referendum bill allowing temporary registration certificate holders, alongside the recognised citizenship categories, to vote in a proposed constitutional referendum. The decision concerned a possible referendum rather than the November general election itself. Nevertheless, it maintained a form of political participation that white-card holders had previously exercised.
President Thein Sein had earlier supported their inclusion. Contemporary reporting recorded that, in December 2014, he returned the referendum bill to Parliament with a recommendation that white-card holders be permitted to vote, referring to their participation in the 2008 referendum. His subsequent reversal therefore contradicted the position he had recently advanced.
Opposition to their participation quickly became public. Buddhist monks and other demonstrators gathered in Yangon on 11 February to demand the withdrawal of white-card holders’ voting rights. The presidential announcement followed that day. Reporting by The Irrawaddy described the reversal as occurring only hours after the demonstration. This chronology documents the political pressure surrounding the decision, although it does not establish every consideration behind the president’s action.
The Presidential Order: Expiry and Surrender
On 11 February 2015, Thein Sein announced that existing temporary registration certificates would expire on 31 March 2015 and must be surrendered by 31 May 2015. These were separate deadlines: the cards ceased to be valid at the end of March, while their collection continued afterwards. Yanghee Lee’s report identified the measure as Presidential Notification No. 19/2015.
For Rohingya, the announcement placed a previously recognised route to electoral participation in immediate jeopardy. Abu Tahay, a Rohingya political leader, criticised the government’s reversal in an interview published on 12 February. He attributed the announcement to pressure and questioned whether the termination of the documents followed the relevant registration rules. His response shows that Rohingya political figures challenged both the political circumstances and the administrative basis of the decision at the time.
The withdrawal also created uncertainty over what documents people would receive in exchange. Democratic Voice of Burma reported that the announcement offered no concrete commitment to a route to citizenship for those facing disenfranchisement. The government was withdrawing documents associated with voting before establishing a dependable replacement that would preserve that right.
The Constitutional Tribunal and Parliamentary Exclusion
In mid-February, the Constitutional Tribunal ruled that the referendum provision allowing white-card holders to vote was unconstitutional. Contemporary reporting stated that Parliament was informed of the decision on 16 February; Yanghee Lee’s report recorded the opinion under 17 February. The ruling addressed participation in the proposed constitutional referendum. It should be distinguished from the subsequent amendments governing parliamentary elections.
The ruling reinforced the exclusionary direction already established by the presidential notification. In her later legal research, scholar Melissa Crouch examined how the tribunal’s citizenship reasoning supported the position of legislators seeking to exclude temporary card holders. Her analysis treated the case as a politically consequential constitutional intervention, rather than a neutral administrative clarification.
On 25 May, The Irrawaddy reported that the Lower House had approved amendments to three election laws covering the Upper House, Lower House and regional legislatures. The amendments removed temporary identity card holders from the categories entitled to vote. An NLD parliamentarian told the publication that the measures had been approved without deliberation.
The Carter Center’s final election report recorded that Parliament amended the election laws in June 2015. The exclusion therefore operated through both documentary invalidation and a change in electoral legislation. Former holders could no longer rely on the legal provision that had previously recognised their voting eligibility.
What the Decision Meant Inside Rohingya Communities
Contemporary reporting from Thae Chaung, near Sittwe, recorded responses that ranged from resignation to resistance. Minara, a 23-year-old resident, expressed her sense that she had little power to prevent the authorities from taking her card. Mohammad Ayub, aged 28, said he would surrender his only if granted citizenship rights equal to those enjoyed by other ethnic minorities. He also expressed distrust of the government.
These accounts show why the change could not be understood solely as an adjustment to electoral paperwork. Residents faced the loss of a document connecting them to political participation, while remaining uncertain about the status that would follow. Their reactions were not uniform, but the reported concerns shared a central question: what enforceable rights would remain after the state collected the cards?
Rohingya Organisations Challenged the Withdrawal
The Burmese Rohingya Organisation UK addressed the decision directly in an April 2015 briefing. It described the cancellation as the removal of one of the few rights Rohingya still possessed: the ability to vote. The organisation connected the loss of referendum participation with exclusion from the approaching general election and challenged the credibility of a democratic transition that permitted this withdrawal.
BROUK also criticised what it considered the inadequate international response, particularly the British government’s approach. This was the organisation’s contemporary assessment of diplomatic policy, rather than evidence that no international official raised concerns. Its briefing is significant because it records Rohingya advocacy during the period when exclusion was being implemented, before the election’s outcome became the dominant international story.
The scale of exclusion should be described carefully. Contemporary sources offered differing estimates of affected people, sometimes referring to all white-card holders and sometimes specifically to Rohingya. Those figures should not automatically be treated as counts of eligible adult Rohingya voters. The consistently documented finding is that hundreds of thousands lost electoral eligibility, with a particularly severe impact on Rohingya communities.
International Warnings and the Failure to Preserve Voting Rights
On 25 February, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein warned that the expiry announcement appeared designed to prevent white-card holders from participating in the proposed referendum and possibly the general election. He also cautioned against politicians appealing to prejudice for electoral advantage. His intervention placed the withdrawal within a wider concern that minority rights were deteriorating during Myanmar’s transition.
The British government’s July 2015 human rights update subsequently acknowledged concerns about former white-card holders. It reported that authorities were collecting the documents and issuing receipts whose legal status was unclear. The update stated that British officials had raised the vulnerability of affected people and the risk of Rohingya disenfranchisement with Myanmar’s authorities.
As polling approached, international organisations continued to challenge the exclusion. Civil Rights Defenders described it as a threat to electoral integrity and called for the restoration of Rohingya voting rights. Amnesty International warned on 5 November that hundreds of thousands of Rohingya and others would be unable to vote despite having participated in earlier elections. These warnings did not result in the restoration of voting rights before polling day.
Exclusion Before the Ballots Were Cast
The withdrawal changed who could participate in Myanmar’s political transition before any November ballots were counted. Rohingya exclusion arose from decisions by the presidency, constitutional authorities and Parliament, accompanied by public campaigns opposing their participation. It was established through state action months before the election.
For Rohingya who had previously voted, the central loss was the removal of an existing means of political participation. The approaching election would choose representatives and reshape national politics, while many affected residents were denied a voice in that choice. Their disenfranchisement became a defining limit of the 2015 transition: greater electoral opportunity for much of Myanmar proceeded alongside the organised exclusion of a persecuted community.