During the past four years, Myanmar has opened up, revealing the country's mammoth problems and challenges, especially those related to race and religion.
"It is time for change, vote National League for Democracy for genuine change," has been the opposition's key message. Repeated calls for more political reforms - along with Aung San Suu Kyi's international stature as a Nobel laureate - have miraculously connected her to the voters, especially the young voters, who have been mesmerized by her political brinkmanship.
The ruling Union Solidarity Development Party has been in power for five years and now asks for a new mandate. In his official speech on the election widely publicized in the government-run newspapers, President Thein Sein said the country needed him to continue the ongoing reforms, including building up "a new political system and new political culture". He admitted the government had encountered "many difficulties", and that it had to find answers to these challenges; he even evoked the importance of people-centered policies and approaches in service and other areas as new challenges.
The official results will come in two weeks. There are at least three possibilities for the post-election political architecture. The first possibility would be a decisive victory for the NLD with a majority, minus the 25 percent quota held by the Tatmadaw (Myanmar military). This would put Suu Kyi in the supreme position to decide the body politic in Myanmar for years to come - something to which she aspires. But to ensure a smooth transition from the Thein Sein government to one belonging to the opposition, the overall security interests of Myanmar's military both individually and institutionally will have be taken into consideration.
Throughout the political campaign, Suu Kyi has maintained neutral voices and tones about the role of the military in the country, knowing full well the importance of its role in society and eventual engagement.
The second possibility is the NLD is still the winner, but without a large majority. In this case, Suu Kyi continues to press for constitutional amendments to secure the presidency, which bans her ascendancy as enshrined in the 2008 constitution. Her latest remark on her future political role as above the president has upset the Tatmadaw and drawn heavy criticism from USDP leaders. If she pursues this aim, the country's post-election political scene could easily sink into crisis as she would face serious objections from the military.
It would be wise for her to stick with the present charter for the time being. Under the 2008 constitutional framework, the military would be willing to wait and give the NLD a chance.
The third possibility would be the two main parties forming a national coalition government with assistance from ethnic parties. This formula would be ideal for post-election Myanmar, as it would be able to simultaneously pursue the changes Suu Kyi has constantly called for and the continuity of the economic and political reforms initiated by Thein Sein would be retained.
If they can collaborate as they did between 2011 and 2012, Myanmar will have a win-win formula: continuity and change.
But when some of the promises by Thein Sein for further reforms and constitutional-related matters were not kept, Suu Kyi adopted a tougher position against the ruling party.
To form a government of national unity, both Thein Sein and Suu Kyi must reach a good understanding of their respective roles in the new political environment. The choice of president and two vice-presidents will show how much rapport they have and their political pragmatism.
The author, Kavi Chongkittavorn, is a senior fellow at the Institute of Strategic and International Studies at Chulalongkorn University/Asia News Network.
