Conclusion: "The election process and results demonstrate that Burma?s leadership is committed to maintaining both a formal role for the military in government, with no real checks on its power, as well as a murkier influence through its proxy party, the USDP. This election scenario was predictable. Less so was the reaction that large ceasefire groups had when pressured to transform into border guards. Ceasefire agreements are already breaking down, and the drums of war beat louder. In the often heated debate about the election process, several of the nonestablishment actors encouraged participation in the process as the only pragmatic, albeit severly flawed, path toward democratic transition. Before Aung San Suu Kyi?s release, no viable alternative to this military-dominated road map seemed to be available, and disengaging from the process equated to not doing anything. The possibility of utilizing domestic measures to combat impunity is miniscule, even though substantial, credible evidence shows that war crimes and crimes against humanity have occurred. ictj briefing Impunity or Reconciliation in Burma?s Transition 7 Her release has breathed new life into the many low-profile efforts to develop alternatives to the terms of the military?s tightly controlled transition. Tripartite dialogue may suddenly be back on the table. In one recent interview, the NLD leader stated, ?It?s no use saying that you can choose freely between a rock and a hard place. We want meaningful choice.?8 Aung San Suu Kyi is not the only legitimate voice providing a vision for change. But because of her support from the Burmese people and her high profile internationally, she is the only one who seems capable of offering an alternative to the military?s road map. She has captured the imagination of the Burmese and the international community. Because of her legitimacy, her release provides the opportunity to imagine an alternative to the strict terms of transition that the military has insisted on since 1988."