Since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, policy-makers and students of comparative government alike have celebrated the large number of countries which supposedly have made the “transition to democracy”. Yet, behind the numbers lies an extraordinarily complex reality and immense problems for most of these countries in making democracy “real”. The mere fact of “free and fair” multi-party elections, the most commonly used indicator of democracy, says little about the actual distribution of power and almost nothing about the quality of governance and broader development of the countries in question.

“Democratization” is a highly complex, multi-faceted and openended process, involving shifts in many different spheres of governance and social relations, often including a stop to armed conflict, the introduction of regular elections for government office, greater freedom of speech and association, an expansion of civil society, and improvements in economic and educational opportunities for the general population. It is the totality of these processes that matters, both for the sustainability of democracy as a system of government and for progress in human security and welfare.

When considering the challenges of transition in Myanmar, it is critically important to keep these complexities in mind. The Myanmar people may both want and need “democracy”, although perceptions of what that entails differ greatly within the country. But there is no single path forward, no one event — whether the inauguration of a new constitution, the holding of multi-party elections or the convening of an elected parliament — that would define success, and no endgame to win or loose. Instead, the focus should be on the multitude of issues that needs to be resolved to facilitate the country's progress towards peace, prosperity, and participatory government. Only then may we begin to capture the true meaning of democratization, and realize the many potential benefits that such a process undoubtedly holds.