First, the military is engaging in mass disenfranchisement as a political strategy. It is expected to cancel voting in numerous ethnic townships, citing “security concerns.” This tactic has been used in every past election to suppress the ethnic vote and weaken ethnic political parties. The military has already announced that many seats in the Upper House, representing ethnic minority areas, will be left vacant. This reduces ethnic representation and lowers the threshold needed for its proxy party to control the legislature and presidency. This constitutes a discriminatory violation of the right to vote. Second, in ethnic areas where voting does proceed, the military is likely to use heightened levels of intimidation and violence. Decades of “scorched earth” campaigns, extrajudicial killings, and torture have created a unique climate of fear in these regions. The military is likely to leverage this history to coerce votes, in direct violation of the right to vote free from intimidation. Third, the military will continue the systematic disenfranchisement of the Rohingya population through discriminatory citizenship laws, a long-standing violation of the principle of nondiscrimination among people. This exclusion is a hallmark of the military's atrocity policies and renders any election in Rakhine State fundamentally illegitimate. After the election: International complicity and continued repression The final phase of rights violations will likely be enabled by the international community's response to the election's manufactured outcome. The primary purpose of the election is to provide a political off-ramp for regional and other powers to re-engage with the military, under the guise of interacting with a “constitutionally formed” government. It is likely that some countries, prioritising perceived stability over human rights, will use the election as a justification to normalise relations and deepen engagement. This re-engagement will likely occur even as the military continues its campaign of terror, using its new “legitimacy” as a shield against international criticism. The election thus becomes a tool to launder the military's international reputation, providing diplomatic cover that allows the violation of the right to life (ICCPR Article 6) and other fundamental rights to continue with diminished international scrutiny. This international acceptance, however tacit, would embolden the military and undermine efforts to hold it accountable for its atrocity crimes. Conclusion The military's 2025 election is a predictable tragedy, a pre-scripted exercise in repression designed to solidify military rule. It is not a democratic process but a violation of fundamental human rights from start to finish. Its outcome is predetermined, and its purpose is to create a political façade to justify the military's continued war on its own people.