This chapter centres on the notion of ‘space’, or room to manoeuvre, for civil society under authoritarian rule. Under the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) government, Myanmar civil society actors operated in a very restricted political space. Many of them adapted to working under the radar of the government, while others refused to make concessions and faced regular repression, imprisonment and threats to their lives. In the course of the political transition, new opportunities opened up for civil society to get involved in politics and contribute to policy development. For others, including ethnic nationalities and vocal dissidents, room to manoeuvre remained limited, or even diminished. This created tensions within civil society over the nature of this new space, and the question of the extent to which civil society in transitional Myanmar could really operate independently from the government. This chapter and the next illustrate both sides of the debate. They show how the space experienced by various actors was determined by a number of factors including individual background and strategies to mobilize support, the location and timing of activities, and the language in which they were phrased.

While the whole military-led ‘Roadmap to Democracy’ was contentious, particular contestations emerged around the 2008 constitution and the referendum held in the days after cyclone Nargis, as well as the local and international humanitarian responses to the cyclone. Heated debates arose once elections were announced for 2010. The main political opposition decided to boycott the elections due to their unfair nature and the obstructions it faced to meaningful electoral participation. Others, particularly those affiliated with the previously mentioned Third Force, saw the elections as a unique opportunity to create political platforms outside the influence of the military. This chapter discusses the ruptures that occurred within Myanmar civil society as space opened up for some but closed down for others. The following chapters focus on the way these discussions were portrayed towards outside observers, with the 2010 elections as a specific case study.