As the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) met in Hanoi last week, one contentious topic, as predicted, was discussed: political development in Burma and its upcoming election—the first in the country in 20 years.

The date for the 2010 elections has not been set, but 39 political parties are preparing for campaigns with a hope to win seats in the regional and national governing bodies.

The Burmese government's desperate attempt to stifle the emergence of a potential ethnic political force—the Kachin State Progressive Party (KSPP)—will go down in history as another example of brutal suppression of the basic tenets of democracy in Burma.

Last month, a European Union delegation canceled its planned trip to Burma after the Burmese regime refused to allow it to meet detained opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi.

It is popular today to say that Burmese civil society can be built without a struggle despite the present environment created and controlled by a military regime to ensure that people live according to their rules.

Burma's 2010 election, like it or not, will end military rule and result in the emergence of a new form of military-controlled civilian government.

Writing about the French Revolution, Alexis de Tocqueville observed in the 19th century that “the most perilous moment for bad government is when it seeks to mend its ways.” As evidenced by the break-up of the Soviet Union and the end of the Apartheid regime in South Africa, his theory still proves correct two-hundred years later.

Burmese democracy champions are doing just what makes the country's ruling generals happy. They're fighting over a bamboo hat.

With new Burmese political parties now taking their first tentative steps into the political arena ahead of the election, many new faces are introducing themselves and their party policies to the people.

The Burmese people have had tough luck with elections. No elections they have had so far has been free, fair and inclusive. The elections, even in the so-called ‘‘constitutional era (1948-1962),’’ were little short of ‘‘procedural democracy’’ for two reasons—the civil war had disenfranchised much of the population and the Anti-Fascist People’s Freedom League (AFPFL) government had admittedly abused its power to win all the elections.