Myanmar (Burma), a benighted country with great potential, made headlines in the past due to the depredations it suffered under the country’s military junta, which seized power in 1962 and has ruled the country since under different guises. Lately though, it appears to be undergoing a facelift, so to speak, with the media reporting and commenting on some positive developments that might allow it to tap its economic and political potential. And this is because Myanmar’s nominally civilian government under President Thein Sein, a former general, has decided to open up the country’s political space a bit, starting with the release of Aung San Suu Kyi, The Lady, as she is affectionately called. Suu Kyi has spent much of her time since returning to Burma from Britain in 1988 under house arrest. Her party, the National League for Democracy (NLD), was denied its election victory in 1990, the last time free elections were held under army rule. Its leaders and activists were thrown into prison despite having won the election legally and handsomely. Obviously, the generals had thought that they were genuinely popular and might return to power in civilian garb. When that did not happen, they were terribly disappointed and decided to dispense with the whole civilian charade. It has taken them over 20 years to rethink their political strategy. A political thaw has descended on Myanmar with some political prisoners released, media restrictions eased and Suu Kyi and her NLD party allowed to contest by-elections to parliament. This has encouraged the US and European countries to ease economic sanctions against Myanmar and resume a political discourse and exchanges with the government. Recently, there have been high-level visits to Myanmar by the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, British Prime Minister David Cameron, and the Australian Foreign Minister Bob Carr. While all these foreign dignitaries were received at the official level by the country’s president and others, a highlight of their visits was their meetings with Suu Kyi, with no official position. And they made important official announcements about easing relations with Myanmar only after consultations with Suu Kyi. In other words, Suu Kyi very much looked like the popular, though unofficial leader of the country. She has given a nod for the suspension of sanctions, which would mean that the sanctions would be brought back if the regime faltered. The important question is why this change of heart on the part of the military junta, with President Thein Sein as their civilian frontman. The likely explanation is that the country has reached a dead end, politically and economically. Moreover, its civilian façade of a new constitution in 2008, and a dubiously elected parliament in 2010 (boycotted by Suu Kyi’s NLD), with 25 percent of the seats reserved for unelected military officials, has not done much to legitimise civilian rule. Myanmar has become a basket case without any economic future. Internationally, it is a pariah state subject to extensive sanctions. Under the circumstances, the government has decided to ease a bit to create a relatively liberal political climate, starting with the release of Suu Kyi and allowing her and her NLD some political space. Suu Kyi responded by urging the international community to suspend sanctions. The induction of NLD into the political process has started with Suu Kyi and her party winning 43 of the 44 by-elections held recently. Which only goes to show that if the next elections due in 2015 are held freely and openly, Suu Kyi and her party would easily romp into power. The question is, in that case would the generals do what they did in 1990 when the NLD was stripped of victory and the military reclaimed its dictatorship? One can only hope that the generals now realise that the country is already at a dead end and there is no going back. However, a sticking point has already arisen about the validity of the constitutional oath for the new MPs to enter parliament. They are seeking a rewording of the oath, being unwilling to pledge allegiance to a constitution that privileges the army to a quarter of the seats in parliament. In the new spirit of cooperation, some sort of agreed resolution of this sticky situation might be worked out. For the democratisation process to be properly entrenched, the Generals cannot claim to be more special than others. Suu Kyi’s next real battle will be to have a new constitution based on popular representation. The second reason that might explain the military’s change of heart is their fear that the country’s overwhelming dependence on China economically and politically might turn Myanmar into a Chinese dependency. Their first act of assertion in this regard was the shelving of a multi-billion dollar Chinese-financed dam on the Irrawaddy River. The electricity from this project was committed to China. Indeed, it appears that the shelving decision was sprung on China without prior notice. In the circumstances, Myanmar apparently is seeking to rebalance its relations with the outside world. If everything goes well, and it is a big if, Myanmar might eventually take its rightful place in the comity of nations. There is some worry that the Generals’ change of heart might be intended to co-opt Suu Kyi into gaining national and international legitimacy for the military’s civilian façade of a government. If that is their final goal, they might be barking up the wrong tree. If Suu Kyi were so easily co-opted, it would have happened long ago. During her 20-odd years in the political wilderness, much of it spent in house arrest, the lady has shown herself to be a leader of high principles and great integrity, prepared to suffer intense personal and family grief for her cause. When her husband, the British academic, Michael Aris, was sick with cancer, dying, she did not make the trip to the UK because the junta might not allow her to return to Myanmar. He husband was not allowed a visa to visit her either all through this period. She suffered the agony of living alone in Myanmar without her family — her husband and two sons. Having come to Myanmar from Britain so many years ago to tend to her old and sick mother, she ended up staying on to fight for the country’s political future. With such a history, it is unlikely that the military would be able to use her for their political ends. The road to popular democracy in Myanmar might not be all that easy, because the Generals will fear retribution for their crimes of murder and mayhem. If that were the only obstacle along the road, appropriate legislation to grant retrospective amnesty might be the way out. That certainly will be a high price to pay but Myanmar badly needs to get rid of the military mafia. The writer is a senior journalist and academic based in Sydney, Australia. He can be reached at sushilpseth@yahoo.com