Election Mediation Committees (EMCs) The UEC established election mediation committees (EMCs) ahead of the 2015 general elections as an alternative dispute resolution mechanism to resolve contentious situations that may arise in relation to the conduct of election campaigns and enforcement of the code of conduct for political parties and candidates. The same mechanism was adopted in the 2017 and 2018 by-elections and worked well by settling many disputes at the township level. The UEC included electoral dispute resolution as one of the strategic pillars in its Strategic Plan 20192022 with the goal to make the process more effective and transparent. EMCs were codified in the election by-laws earlier this year and became part of the formal election process. The primary purpose of the EMCs is to help diffuse conflicts during the election campaign period in a peaceful manner through dialogue and consensus, although EMC decisions are not legally binding. The EMCs were formed at the township, district, state/region, and national levels after the date of election was announced. The stakeholders who can raise a dispute with the EMC are political parties and candidates involved in the dispute, relevant government departments or sub-commissions, and election agents and voters who are related to the dispute. EMC meetings are open to the public, and observers and voters are permitted to attend. In the preparation to the 2020 elections, the UEC published the Guide for Various Levels of Mediation Committees 104 to ensure a smoother process of handling disputes. Consistent online trainings were also held by the UEC for EMC members prior to the elections. On the other hand, the UEC published a video 105 and a poster 106 to educate stakeholders on the mediation process. ANFREL’s interviews with stakeholders found that election disputes during the campaign were solved promptly through the EMCs and rarely escalated beyond the township level. This is therefore a worthwhile initiative that successfully promotes mediation and compromise among stakeholders. Campaign Finance Myanmar’s election laws set a spending limit of 10 million kyat (approximately USD7,770) for all candidates regardless of their hluttaw goals. For the 2020 elections, this amount has been raised to 15 million kyat (approximately USD11,660) for ethnic affairs candidates only. The standard spending limit across the board raised the concern of inequality as the size of each constituency varies. Each Pyithu Hluttaw constituency for instance is twice the size of region/state hluttaw seats in the same township, yet both candidates are bound to the same spending ceiling. On the other hand, the campaign finance regulations lack a clear distinction between political parties and candidates’ expenses. It leads to an unlevel playing field which unfairly disadvantages small parties and independent candidates. The regulations also require the candidates to submit their financial statements to the relevant subcommissions within 30 days after the announcement of election results. Failure to submit the statement may lead to disqualification of the elected candidates. These financial statements will be made available for public inspection later against the payment of a fee. However, monitoring of election expenses by the UEC is weak, and compliance with campaign finance regulations is more assumed than enforced. 104 https://merin.org.mm/sites/merin.org.mm/files/publication/mediation_guide_en.pdf https://www.facebook.com/609520065840362/videos/919037571852278/ 106 https://www.facebook.com/uecmyanmar/photos/a.609541812504854/2875207495938263/ 105 37