Myanmar is still a far cry from being a democracy

The landslide victory of Aung San Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy (NLD) in Myanmar’s recent parliamentary elections seems to signal the end of the long journey to democracy after its 1990 election majority was crushed by military action. However, it will be unwise and premature to conclude that after these elections Myanmar would become a vibrant democracy.

India, in particular, needs to be doubly cautious as it has pumped in hundreds of millions of dollars in this neighbouring country and a large number of projects worth hundreds of millions of dollars are pending.

The most immediate and urgent strategic objective of India in Myanmar pertains to the fate of pending Indian projects which have already been overly delayed. This delay is extremely galling for India and that is why for the past two years the ministry of external affairs has taken a policy decision that it won’t work on new projects until the pending ones are completed.

An obvious outcome of the delay would be that the new government would either cancel these commitments or seek out others who can do it. China could be the biggest beneficiary and now, with the return of democracy and sanctions lifted, there will be a rush from the world community – including those who have imposed sanctions – to help Myanmar rebuild itself.

Myanmar is on the cusp of political change that remains uncertain. There is still need for caution in that it is necessary to wait and watch if the present government of president Thein Sein will keep its promise.

One cannot lose sight of the fact that the military has been predominant and calls the shots on the ground and has even 25 per cent reserved strength in the new legislature.

Also, having tasted power for half-a-century, and having lost the election to democratic forces, it is unlikely to give up power easily. For military-backed incumbents used to occupying the seat of power, surrendering their posts can be a challenge. In spite of some formal pledges of respecting the election result, there have been reports of senior members of the ruling Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP) showing grudging acknowledgment.

It can easily take half-a-year before a defiant military creates trouble or a disgruntled faction materialises.

In Myanmar's system, a new party takes power only after more than four months following the conclusion of an election.

The military, or even only significant elements of it, may feel itself coming under siege as an institution.

Alternatively, individuals within the military may expect that an NLD government may seek justice or vengeance for all the wrongs they had committed.

In either case, the stock reaction is to strike by undermining or neutralising the NLD and its leaders before they entrench themselves in government. The generals who have had ample time to acquire a taste for power may have, however, found a new maturity, but nobody can be certain of that.

This election is opportune in presenting the country with the means to set right many wrongs and steer it away from a likely catastrophe. No election, however historic, can be an end in itself but only a means to produce some necessary and desirable ends.