Both government and opposition see bashing the besieged Rohingya minority as a sure-fire path to electoral success.

The Burmese government recently came under fire for back-pedaling on a pledge to grant the country’s beleaguered Rohingya minority the right to vote. On Feb. 12, the government announced the imminent suspension of all temporary ID cards held by over half a million Rohingya Muslims in western Burma, dashing hopes that they might be allowed to vote in Burma’s first general election in over 50 years, scheduled for the end of this year.

The proposal to grant the Rohingya voting rights — aggressively promoted by Burma’s ruling Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP) and passed by parliament on Feb. 2 — had been seen as a flicker of hope for the stateless Muslim minority squeezed into apartheid-like conditions near the Bangladeshi border. But President Thein Sein quickly bowed to a growing Buddhist protest movement and withdrew his support. A spokesperson for the U.S. government criticized his decision as “counter to reconciliation in Rakhine [state],” where outbursts of religious violence between Rakhine Buddhists and Rohingya Muslims have claimed dozens of lives since 2012. The sad reality is that the proposal was never more than a cynical political ploy to harness votes for the military-aligned USDP ahead of the highly anticipated elections. The government’s rapid U-turn only exposes its two-faced policy toward the Rohingya.

Indeed, the military and its proxy parties have simultaneously suppressed and courted the Rohingya vote since 2008, when the military welcomed their support to help rig a referendum approving a controversial new constitution. In the flawed 2010 election, many stateless Rohingya were offered the prospect of citizenship in exchange for casting their ballots for the USDP, which subsequently grasped power in three Muslim-majority constituencies in northern Rakhine State. Once in office, President Thein Sein’s government quickly reneged on these commitments.

There are currently six ethnic Rohingya legislators representing the USDP in northern Rakhine: three at the state and three at the national level. These politicians, who took up their posts promising to secure greater rights and freedoms for their people, have proven troublesome for the ruling party. Shwe Maung, a Rohingya member of the national parliament, has drawn considerable ire for his unapologetic activism on behalf of his constituency. Last year a presidential spokesman accused him of “defamation” for implicating local police officers in an alleged massacre of Rohingya in the western town of Maungdaw.

Nonetheless, in 2010 the Rohingya vote was essential to the USDP, with nearly half of its legislators in Rakhine elected by the minority (while several more seats were obtained through electoral fraud). The USDP’s overtures to the Rohingya also provoked hostility from the Buddhist-majority ethnic Rakhine — another minority group long persecuted by the military junta — who mostly view the Rohingya as “illegal immigrants” from neighboring Bangladesh, and see the government’s courting of their vote as a betrayal of their state for political profit. Buoyed by hostility toward the Burman-dominated military, a nationalist Rakhine party (now known as the Rakhine National Party or RNP), won a majority of seats in the national and regional parliaments. The RNP and other Rakhine nationalist parties have since spearheaded efforts to marginalize and disenfranchise the Rohingya, whose plight became more acute in 2012, when religious violence forced some 140,000 of them into cramped, disease-infested camps. With its new influence in parliament, the RNP has successfully pushed through a law banning undocumented Rohingya from forming political parties.

As in 2010, the RNP now poses a significant electoral threat to the USDP in Rakhine State, where the ruling party is likely to lose most of its remaining seats in the 2015 poll without the Rohingya vote. This is why the USDP once again turned — briefly — to the Rohingya in an effort to attract voters in the region this year. This is not without a small tinge of irony, considering the government’s oppression of the minority, who Thein Sein has repeatedly threatened to deport from Burma.

Unfortunately, a tide of Buddhist nationalism has now made it more politically profitable to vilify the Rohingya than to woo them for their votes. Since the 2012 violence, the unpopular minority has become a rallying tool for both ethnic Rakhine and Burman political parties — boosted by a nationwide crusade to “defend” Buddhism against Islam. The government has never recognized the term “Rohingya” and has been accused of complicity in a campaign of ethnic cleansing against the minority. President Thein Sein has even publicly defended the country’s most venomous hate preacher,Ashin Wirathu, who has likened Muslims to “mad dogs.”

Wirathu’s powerful Buddhist nationalist group, known locally as the “Ma Ba Tha,” has collaborated with the government to draft a set of “race and religious protection” laws designed to restrict the rights of Muslims. In turn, Wirathu has backed Thein Sein and warned against amending the constitution to allow opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi a chance at the presidency. This cozy relationship exposes the political value of exploiting, rather than soothing, anti-Muslim sentiments in the run-up to the elections. In this context, it should come as no surprise that the USDP leadership quickly abandoned its flirtations with the Rohingya vote.

The military, which has a long history of pitting the country’s myriad ethnic and religious groups against each other, has even less incentive to support the reviled minority. Since 2012, ethnic Rakhine have welcomed thousands of Burmese troops into the restive state to maintain security. The military’s role has been amplified by persistent rumors — often repeated by the government — that Rohingya separatists are now active along the Bangladeshi border. The threat of instability and violence may thus serve as an alternate strategy to boost the army’s popularity in Rakhine and defend its grip over Burmese politics.

Shwe Maung, one of the Rohingya lawmakers from Rakhine, concedes that the USDP leadership “may have another plan” in place for winning support in Rakhine. He says he feels “betrayed” by the government, and will not stand in the 2015 election unless temporary ID or “white card” holders are allowed to vote. This looks increasingly unlikely, as white cards will be invalidated from March 31, rendering their owners unable to vote under Burmese election law. As some 95 percent of Shwe Maung’s constituency are Muslim Rohingya, the disenfranchisement of its population could be devastating — not least if Rakhine nationalists secured his seat.

The Burmese government continues to push ahead with its controversial nationality verification process, which will require Rohingya Muslims to label themselves as “Bengali” in order to obtain citizenship. The few Rohingya who have accepted this designation have seen no significant changes to their standard of living, remaining confined to peripheral slums or displacement camps with limited access to education and healthcare. All Rohingya “white card” holders will now be obligated to undergo this process after their documents expire next month. Those who refuse risk deportation.

The idea of using the Rohingya as pawns rather than allies seems to have permeated the opposition party as well. Democracy icon Aung San Suu Kyi’s party, the National League for Democracy (NLD), also fought against the bid to enfranchise the Rohingya, with one of the party’s lawmakers dismissing the proposal as “inconsistent” with other legislation. It is not the first time the Nobel laureate has drawn criticism for her silence on the oppression of the Rohingya or Burma’s escalating anti-Muslim sentiments. In December, the NLD fired one of its leaders for making a public speech criticizing the proliferation of Buddhist extremism. He is now facing a three-year jail sentence for “insulting” religion. Suu Kyi has never spoken in his support.

Her silence has been widely interpreted as a Machiavellian gambit designed to avoid controversy ahead of the 2015 election that, assuming it is free and fair, her party is expected to win by a landslide. The upsurge in religious hostility — which has claimed hundreds of mostly Muslim lives across the country since 2012 — is seen by some as a manufactured attempt to fracture her popular support base. Either way, Suu Kyi – like her uniformed opponents — seems to have prioritized political cunning over human rights.

As Burma’s historic elections draw nearer, it is becoming increasingly clear that the Rohingya have little to gain from the country’s political transition, which ended five decades of military rule in 2011. Neither the ruling party nor the opposition has ever been genuinely interested in promoting their rights. On Wednesday, a UN human rights chief warned Burmese politicians against fanning the “flames of prejudice” to win votes in the upcoming poll. Unfortunately, it would appear that the besieged minority carries far greater political currency as scapegoats than as full-fledged participants in Burma’s fragile democracy.

Human rights in Myanmar backtracked in key areas in 2014 despite ongoing reforms in the Southeast Asian nation, according to a report released Wednesday, which counted discrimination and restrictions on freedom of expression among the worst violations in the country.

In its annual report on the state of the world’s human rights, London-based Amnesty International said the situation of the ethnic Muslim Rohingyas “deteriorated” in 2014, with ongoing discrimination in law and practice, and authorities failing to hold perpetrators of anti-Muslim violence to account.

“Individuals suffered persistent discrimination in law and policy, exacerbated by a deepening humanitarian crisis, ongoing eruptions of religious and anti-Muslim violence, and government failures to investigate attacks on Rohingya and other Muslims,” the report said.

“The authorities also failed to address incitement to violence based on national, racial and religious hatred.”

An estimated 139,000 people—mostly Rohingya—remained displaced in western Myanmar’s Rakhine state after violence erupted between Rakhine Buddhists and Rohingyas in 2012, Amnesty said, adding that the situation had worsened when some aid organizations were expelled from the country after they were attacked by Rakhine people for allegedly giving preferential treatment to Muslims.

Rohingyas also remained deprived of nationality under Myanmar’s 1982 Citizenship Act, leaving them open to restrictions on freedom of movement that affected their livelihoods, the report said.

The government in October introduced a new Rakhine State Action Plan which, if implemented, would further entrench discrimination and segregation of the Rohingyas, it said, adding that the announcement appeared to trigger a new wave of people fleeing the country in boats to join the 87,000 who have already done so since the violence started in 2012.

The government and ethnic armed groups failed to agree to a nationwide cease-fire, and ongoing conflict in Myanmar’s Kachin and Northern Shan states led to violations of international humanitarian and human rights law reported on both sides, including unlawful killings and torture, and other ill-treatment, such as rape and other crimes of sexual violence.

Amnesty said that freedom of expression and right of peaceful assembly remained “severely restricted” in 2014, with “scores” of human rights defenders, journalists, political activists and farmers arrested or imprisoned “solely for the peaceful exercise of their rights.”

Myanmar’s President Thein Sein failed to keep his promise to release the country’s remaining prisoners of conscience in 2014, it said, while protests against land confiscations and forced evictions were “widespread,” some of which were met with “unnecessary or excessive use of force” by security forces.

Amnesty also slammed Myanmar’s failure to ratify the U.N. Convention against Torture as promised by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, noting that allegations of torture and other ill-treatment were “persistent,” though investigations into complaints were rare and suspected perpetrators were seldom held to account.

Meanwhile, it said, immunity from prosecution for past violations by the security forces and other government officials remained codified in the country’s junta-backed 2008 constitution, denying victims of past rights violations and their families truth, justice, compensation and any other form of reparation.

Cambodia

In Cambodia, respect for the right to freedoms of expression, association and assembly deteriorated due to a seven-month ban on public gatherings, the report said, which was instituted following a three-day crackdown on January 2014 protests in Phnom Penh that resulted in at least four deaths and 23 arrests.

Authorities used “excessive force” against peaceful protesters, resulting in deaths and injuries, it said, and district security guards and plain-clothed men in the capital frequently used weapons such as sticks, wooden batons, metal bars, electroshock weapons and slingshots to break up demonstrations.

Human rights defenders and political activists faced threats, harassment, prosecution and sometimes violence, though impunity for perpetrators of human rights abuses persisted, with no thorough, impartial and independent investigations into killings and beatings, Amnesty said.

Thousands of people affected by land grabbing by private companies for development and agro-industry faced forced eviction and loss of land, housing and livelihood in 2014, it said.

The group cited an April report by local rights group Licadho, which estimated that the total number of people affected since 2000 by land grabbing and forced evictions in 13 provinces monitored—about half the country—had passed half a million.

Vietnam

In one-party communist Vietnam, “severe restrictions” on freedoms of expression, association and assembly continued in 2014, Amnesty said, as the state continued to control the media and the judiciary, as well as political and religious institutions.

At least 60 prisoners of conscience remained jailed in harsh conditions following “unfair trials,” including bloggers, labor and land rights activists, political activists, religious followers, members of ethnic groups and advocates for human rights and social justice, while new trials and arrests took place.

Amnesty said authorities attempted to curtail the activities of unauthorized civil society groups through harassment, surveillance and restrictions on freedom of movement, while security officers frequently harassed and physically attacked peaceful activists and held them in short-term detention.

Laos

In communist Laos, state controls over the media, judiciary and political and social institutions also contributed to severe restrictions on freedoms of expression, association and peaceful assembly in 2014, Amnesty said.

Draft laws and a decree to control the use of the internet and social media were completed by the end of the year, it noted.

The report cited a “lack of openness” and a “scarcity of information” in the country, which it said made independent monitoring of the human rights situation difficult.

It also noted that the enforced disappearance of prominent civil society member Sombath Somphone remained unresolved at the end of the year, adding that police had provided little information about the progress of their investigation.

“This compounded fears that the failure to properly investigate Sombath Somphone’s abduction of to attempt to locate him indicated complicity in his disappearance, which undermined the development of an active and confident civil society,” the report said.

With the people of Myanmar heading to the polls later this year, there are troubling signs that some extremists are intent on stirring up trouble.

Last month, one such extremist held a rally in Yangon. Ashin Wirathu gave a vitriolic speech that attacked U.N. human rights envoy Yanghee Lee.

“Don’t assume you are a respectable person, just because you have a position in the U.N. In our country, you are just a whore,” he said. “If you are so willing, you may offer your arse to the kalar [a racist term meaning 'blacks' that is commonly used to denigrate Muslims in Myanmar]. But you will never sell off our Arakan State!” Remarkably, Wirathu is a monk.

This notorious monk has a history of instigating violence against Myanmar’s Muslim minority and is a bigoted rabble-rouser who allegedly has ties to “dark forces” that are eager to stir up trouble. He served an almost decade-long jail term for inciting violence in the past, but is apparently popular as recordings of his speeches are widely available and he attracts large audiences. On the day of his U.N.-bashing, he marched through Yangon with about 500 supporters, in a nation where such large demonstrations usually require a police permit.

Alas, Wirathu is the poster child for hate speech in Myanmar, spewing his invective and heartily backing controversial new legislation that aims to ban Buddhist women from marrying Muslims. Non-Buddhist men would have to convert to Buddhism before marrying a Buddhist woman, get consent from the bride’s parents or guardians, and only then could local officials register the marriage. Failure to comply could be penalized by imprisonment and/or confiscation of assets. Not only does this deny Muslim men freedom of religion, it also infringes on the rights of Buddhist women. It weakens women’s rights and gives parents or guardians control over the most intimate and important decision many will make in their lives.

This ban on interfaith marriage comes against the backdrop of a significant rise in anti-Muslim violence in recent years. At issue is whether Muslim families in the western state of Rakhine (formerly Arakan) are legitimate citizens of Myanmar, with all the rights that entails, or illegal immigrants from neighboring Bangladesh. The problem of the Rohingya is hotly debated and complicated, but it does seem that many of these Muslim families have been living in the country for several generations and are not recent arrivals. Undoubtedly, though, some of them are and dealing with them has provided a pretext for more draconian state treatment of all Muslims in the area, sparking violence against them, in some cases instigated by monks.

So what is with these militant monks? Certainly they are forcing us to reconsider the stereotype of monks as sutra-reading lotus-eaters dedicated to mindfulness and detachment through quiet meditation. The firebrand extremists are wolves in saffron robes, betraying their faith and urging others to hate and, in extreme cases, engage in acts of violence.

In 2007, several weeks after the Saffron Revolution — when security forces mowed down monks on the streets of Yangon — I was in Sittwe, the capital of Rakhine, and met some monks who had been involved in the anti-government demonstrations. They asked me why the U.S. didn’t launch airstrikes against the generals in Naypidaw, their dystopian capital built in the middle of nowhere. This is not what I expected from monks, but in scenic Mrauk U, a few hours riverboat ride away, I met other monks with the same question. In both places, anti-government invective was laced with nasty comments about Rohingya and Muslims. It was my first inkling that something was amiss.

Wirathu leads the 969 Movement, which promotes boycotts of local Indian or Chinese businesses, exploiting the widespread frustration among people living close to the edge. It is not a big leap from a boycott to some incident that can spark the kindling of discontent that leads to riots, deaths, burning and looting. By inflaming communal tensions and wreaking havoc, Buddhist militants have much to answer for but they enjoy impunity because security forces have not been even-handed.

Wirathu’s jingoistic rhetoric whips crowds into a frenzy, promoting a Buddhist nationalism that taps into the miseries of endemic poverty and offers a handy target. He wants to “save” Buddhist wombs from nefarious Muslims who threaten to overwhelm the demographic balance with their large families. It appears that his campaign is politically motivated as Wirathu is also linked to the government and those who engage in dirty tricks to weaken the election prospects of Aung San Suu Kyi and her party, the National League for Democracy (NLD).

Instigating communal turmoil underscores the need for a robust role by security forces in keeping the peace, thereby playing to the strength of the current government dominated by ex-military officers. They are desperate because everyone is predicting an NLD landslide. Thus a more devious aspect of this campaign is to maneuver Suu Kyi into the position of appearing overly solicitous toward the vilified Rohingya, thus “betraying” the Buddhist majority. Meanwhile, opposing the marriage law would mean she is not protecting “our” women from “them.”

Mindful of this insidious strategy, Suu Kyi must walk a tightrope in ways that frustrate her overseas backers who want her to stand up for the Rohingya. If forecasts are accurate, however, it appears that very few Buddhists are buying into this ruse and her NLD will coast to victory if the elections are free and fair. Will they be?

Curiously, on Feb. 11 the president’s office effectively revoked the voting rights of 2 million people only a few days after a massive majority in parliament granted suffrage to these same holders of temporary identity cards; 1.3 million of them are Muslim Rohingya. This is probably the least of Rohingya worries, but it does underscore how they have become political pawns.

So why was Wirathu lashing out at the U.N.? Because it is calling for Myanmar to grant citizenship to Rohingya born in the country. Lee, the target of Wirathu’s vile tirade, replied with dignity.

“Fundamental rights are not hierarchical — they aren’t conditional upon one another. They’re inalienable,” she said.

Perhaps so, but not if the mad monk and his masters get their way.

Jeff Kingston is the director of Asian Studies, Temple University Japan.