Vol. 50 No. 3 September 2019 ‘Accountability Amidst Fragility, Conflict, and Violence: Learning from Recent Cases’ where long-running sectarian conflicts have escalated since 2011. In order to understand the challenges that persisting authoritarianism, state violence, and civil war pose to civil society in Myanmar, this article situates contemporary social and political action within a historical analysis of political transition. It asks about: (a) the nature of political transition in Myanmar, (b) the challenges that the trajectory of political transition poses for civil society actors, and (c) the implications for international development and peace-building initiatives. This article argues that Myanmar’s political transition should not be understood as a process of democratisation that is driven by pro‑democratic forces and which might eventually lead to liberal democracy. Viewing the country’s transition through the lens of democratisation is not only misleading but deeply problematic. Political reforms were planned and executed by the country’s military: the Tatmadaw. The emergent hybrid civil–military order safeguards authoritarian rule and military dominance. This top-down nature of political transition poses significant challenges for civil society. In combination with fragility and conflict, liberalising the public sphere has not only benefited progressive social and political action but has also enabled the growth of uncivil society,3 whose pursuit of exclusionary identity politics fuels sectarian violence. Persisting conflict and instability in turn has benefited the army by playing to its self-portrayal as the guardian of the nation. Rethinking the history and trajectory of top-down transition is important for development and peace-building initiatives in Myanmar. The rush of Western aid donors to support transition without appreciating its intricate nature has in fact created additional challenges, including for civil society. The wholesale shift of funding from border-based civil society organisations (CSOs) to state-led projects has not only left established civil society networks struggling for survival. It has also played into the hands of a militarised state apparatus that seeks to co-opt development and peace-building initiatives for the purposes of counterinsurgency and ethnocratic state-building. The article is structured in three parts. Section 2 will analyse the historic roots of fragility, conflict, and violence that lie at the heart of persistent authoritarianism in Myanmar by tracing how the country’s protracted ethnic conflict emerged from militarised and violent processes of identity formation during the colonial and postcolonial era. Section 3 will explain why and how Myanmar’s generals initiated wide-ranging liberalisation in 2011 and what this has meant for an increasingly fragmented landscape of civil society actors. Section 4 will analyse the challenges of top-down transition for civil society in the country’s centre and borderlands, including donor engagement with Myanmar. 2 The roots of conflict, fragility, and authoritarianism Analysing the root causes of conflict and fragility in Myanmar is important to understand the emergence and persistence of 18 | Brenner and Schulman Myanmar’s Top-Down Transition: Challenges for Civil Society