Four months into the new government’s five-year term is too early to come to definitive judgements about its performance. Nevertheless, its priorities and approach are becoming clearer, and there are some initial indications of how national politics is adjusting to changed realities. These provide the basis for an initial assessment as Myanmar’s transition enters a new phase under a democratically-elected government that has set a positive initial tone and taken important steps to address the authoritarian legacy. Some of the remaining political detainees were quickly released, and several oppressive and outdated laws have been repealed or are being amended.
Perhaps the most important observation, however, is that Myanmar has passed through a year of considerable uncertainty and change with no major political turmoil. Aung San Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy won a landslide victory in a broadly credible election with almost no violence; there was an orderly handover of power from the military-backed government, and the new administration has now entered an awkward cohabitation with the military, as dictated by the 2008 constitution, without significantly compromising key principles or prompting any fundamental rift with the soldiers. Navigating these difficult waters has been a key early success for all concerned.
The difficulty and uncertainty of that task has left its mark. Suu Kyi, the leader of a long-repressed grassroots change movement, has only partial executive authority under the constitution – both because she is formally barred from the presidency, and because of the military’s significant constitutional power. This appears to have amplified longstanding tendencies, leading her to concentrate power in her own hands and delegate little. She is state counsellor, foreign minister, president office minister and in personal charge of the peace process and addressing the situation in Rakhine state.
While there have been no major failures, there have been missteps, including on the peace process and Rakhine state, both of which relate to a failure to appreciate the complex details and a lack of consultation in advance of announcing important decisions or initiatives. Relations with the military have not always been sensitively handled. Though there appears to be good cooperation and a convergence of views on the peace process – even to the extent that armed group leaders are worried they may have to negotiate with a formidable united front of Suu Kyi and the military – relations in other areas have been strained, particularly around Suu Kyi’s appointment as state counsellor and the manner in which that bill was pushed through the legislature in April. It is essential for the success and stability of the transition that cooperative relations with the military are maintained, and more broadly that the military sees some benefits from the substantial concessions it feels it has made.
The government faces daunting tasks. After decades of authoritarian rule and civil war, many key challenges are structural problems – some dating back to independence in 1948 and the incomplete process of state-building – that cannot be fixed simply by adopting more enlightened policies. The government must find ways of moving the peace process forward, addressing the situation in Rakhine state and continuing the delicate process of rebalancing external relations, particularly vis-à-vis China. As state counsellor, foreign minister and chair of the high-level committees in charge of the peace process and Rakhine state, leadership on all these fronts falls on Suu Kyi’s shoulders, a huge responsibility and potentially overwhelming workload. Success depends on twin policy and personal challenges: developing not only considered and consultative approaches, but also her ability to delegate.
The international community can help in several ways. Western countries are rightly giving the government strong political backing, but should not shy away from offering frank and honest advice. Financial and technical support are much needed, though there is significant risk of uncoordinated aid projects and overlapping and inconsistent technical assistance overwhelming government capacity and potentially doing harm. Donors also need to keep in mind that projects should be carefully designed and closely monitored to reflect that the state and government remain absent or contested in many conflict-affected areas. For two reasons, it is also vital that the West in particular explores appropriate avenues of military-to-military cooperation. It is essential for sustainability of the transition that the military sees institutional benefits from its decision to give up significant power; and socialisation of a generation of military officers with their peers in democratic countries can make an important contribution to reform of the institution.
—International Crisis Group (ICG)