Slightly more than 200 political prisoners, including Burma’s most famous comedian, Zarganar, were released during last week’s amnesty. While the releases are to be welcomed for those who are now free and their families, Zarganar captured the general mood when he stated that he could not rejoice over his freedom as long as so many of his friends remain detained.

Given the strong and numerous signals from key people in authority in Burma in recent weeks, there was reason to expect that more prominent dissidents would be released as well as more prisoners of conscience in total. At present, the amnesty seems little different from previous amnesties granted by Burma’s various authoritarian regimes—which have yet to amount to the beginning of change to believe in.

Instead, we are urged to be patient—yet again. In a recent email to the Wall Street Journal, a representative of Burma’s Ministry of Information suggests that more releases can be forthcoming, but that it depends on those prisoners who have just been released, the democratic opposition and the rest of the world. This is to turn things on their head. Does he imply that the responsibility for more releases now falls on former prisoners, the democracy movement and the international community?

Shortly before the releases took place, Norwegian Deputy Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide paid a visit to Burma—accompanied by Norwegian national broadcaster NRK. His visit played a key role in strengthening expectations as Burma’s parliamentary speaker Thura Shwe Mann seems to have promised during a meeting between the two that releases were forthcoming “within days.” The news quickly spread worldwide—with NRK as the main source.

In an interview with NRK, the Deputy Foreign Minister also noted that Burma is at the beginning of an extensive process of change towards full blown democracy. His diagnosis, however, still lacks a strong basis. It is far too early to conclude. There have been many changes in Burma over the past year. Since the election in November 2010, Burma has a new Parliament, a new civilian government and other institutions associated with a democratic political system. But these institutions can also be found in non-democratic systems, as for instance in neighboring Laos, Vietnam and Cambodia. The government has also become more tolerant towards the activities of media and civil society, but Burma remains some distance away from a process of liberalization, and detentions and sentencing have also continued.

Whether Burma will eventually become a full blown democracy depends on those who have positions of power in the country and how they make use of their power and influence. Experience shows that the attitudes of state leaders towards democracy and respect for human rights is of critical importance in a country undergoing reforms in order to ensure that these reforms move the country in a democratic direction.

A number of observers have noted that what is taking place in Burma seems to be linked to internal differences within the regime between moderate forces and so-called hardliners from the old regime. Burma’s new president, Thein Sein, is seen as belonging to the moderate faction. However, that does not make him a democrat. His primary role is to improve Burma’s relations with the rest of the world. The main proponents of democratic values in Burma remain the opposition led by Aung San Suu Kyi. This is one of the reasons why the dialogue between her and President Thein Sein is of critical importance. Until and unless the attitudes of leading figures in powerful positions change in Burma, a more sober assessment of the potential for Burma to become a full blown democracy remains in order.

Barth Eide made his assessment of the situation in Burma before last week’s releases had taken place. His statements have on a number of occasions revealed Norway’s limited understanding of the situation in the country. At times, it seems more important for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to be able to announce that developments in Burma are moving in the right direction than to make a serious assessment of the situation on the ground. This is the second time the Deputy Foreign Minister displayed a certain naïveté in his dealings with Burma.

During his previous visit to the country last March, Barth Eide also concluded that developments in Burma are moving in the right direction. At that time, his statement stood in contrast to the views of the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Burma, Tomas Ojeas Quintana, who at the same time was visiting Burma’s border areas to meet with victims of the armed conflicts in the country. The special Rapporteur noted that his findings represented a serious obstacle to Burma’s democratic development. That was six months ago, and little has changed in border areas since then.

This time, Barth Eide’s statement that there is a general mood in Burma expectant of exciting things to happen stands in contrast to the wait-and-see attitude that predominates among my Burmese friends and acquaintances. They have been disappointed too many times already and find it difficult to be hopeful—yet again. Barth Eide—and Norway—could benefit from a dialogue with broader sections of the Burmese population.

Barth Eide argues that Norway should be ahead and reward the regime for positive changes. His recommendation is connected in particular to the possible removal of sanctions. The logic is odd. A reward is normally given after a positive act—as an encouragement to continue doing the right thing. To reward in advance is to miss the function of rewards.

Most observers who have followed the situation in Burma over time recognize that sanctions in themselves cannot create a democratic Burma. There is broad agreement that the main function of the sanctions is to serve as a political instrument for the opposition. This is not the time for Norway to soften its support for the forces of reform in the country. It remains essential to listen to the viewpoints of Aung San Suu Kyi. As she also told NRK: When the day comes for lifting the sanctions, she will let the whole world know.

Burma has improved its international reputation recently by engaging in a dialogue with Aung San Suu Kyi, inter alia to discuss the armed conflicts in the country, by putting an end to the building of a dam on the Irrawaddy River following widespread public protests and by suggesting that media censorship needs to stop. But there is still a long way to go from words to action. If the regime is serious about peace talks and dialogue, the release of ethnic leaders, notably Khun Htun Oo, would have been a powerful signal. If the regime is serious about listening to public opinion, the 88 generation students led by Min Ko Naing should be free. And if the regime is serious about ending censorship, detained journalists should be walking out of the prison gates. 

The opposition and the international community have recognized for many years that the release of all political prisoners is the most important confidence building step that could be undertaken by Burma’s rulers. On two occasions over the past year, President Thein Sein has promised amnesties with little substance. More empty promises could undermine the impression that he is a person the opposition can work with—and the value of further releases.

Barth Eide finds that things are changing so fast in Burma that it is almost too fast. What has changed in Burma is the discourse. The regime has finally realized how to make itself understood by the rest of the world. But the willingness and the ability to live up to its promises is still lacking.

Spring has yet to come to Burma. The window of opportunity that Barth Eide believes he has found in Burma only exists if those in power can match their words with action. Only then will it be possible to say that developments in Burma are moving in the right direction. 

The author is a PhD candidate at the Institute for Human Rights and Peace Studies, Mahidol University. The opinions expressed here are her own.