International Journal of Communication 10(2016) Burmese Media in Transition 189 many exceptions as to be unhelpful. He also challenges the notion that most media can be understood as business ventures when so many media in Pacific Asia are in fact not making money or are losing money. He urges us not to think in terms of models, but to recognize media’s roles as active agents in the processes of change and to think about processes and structures that promote and constrain media agency. He lays out three key roles media play at times of crisis and change: They act as agents of stability (often through development journalism), agents of restraint (providing checks and balances on government), or agents of change (helping to shape change). Media can play one or all three roles, even simultaneously. As long as we avoid becoming media-centric, this is an especially useful lens with which to explore media’s role in transition. Media and Transition in Myanmar Myanmar’s transition is widely described as top-down and is primarily driven by the dominant neoliberal development model shared by global governance organizations, financial institutions, major donor agencies, and governments whose donations give them sway with policy makers. The Myanmar government’s reforms were arguably jump-started by the chafing dominance of China over the country’s economic development in recent years and the generals’ need to placate Western concerns to counterbalance China’s influence. The reforms coincided with the Obama administration’s pivot toward the Asia Pacific region as Southeast Asia’s strategic importance has increased in recent years. Especially given elections slated for November 2015 and challenges from the opposition National League for Democracy, the current government of former military officers must continue to convince foreign allies, donors, and its own people of its commitment to the democratization process. One way to do this is to conflate neoliberal economic development with democratization, including in the media sector. Foreign investment is flowing into Myanmar, even as activists continue to critique such problems as violent responses to peaceful protests, fighting between the military and ethnic minority peoples, ongoing repression against the Muslim Rohingya in Rakhine state, land grabbing and environmental degradation, and crackdowns on media. The previous regime established the concept of “disciplined” or “guided” democracy, which remains central to the current government’s discourse. Whereas some scholars and policy makers focus on a narrow procedural definition of democracy-as-elections, others define democracy more broadly, “to include state accountability through other mechanisms, especially through a watchdog role performed by civic organizations and media” (Wells & Kyaw Thu Aung, 2014, p. 76). Wells and Kyaw Thu Aung maintain that this is Burma’s grassroots community-level understanding of democracy as well. Advocates of this approach (including most of those I interviewed) conceptualize transition as requiring not just new laws and policies but cultural change. The remainder of this article focuses on how the transition in Myanmar affects—and, in turn, is affected by—media, how this compares to the experiences of other countries in transition, and how the lessons learned might aid decision makers. I begin by focusing on the origins of the recent changes.