"The political landscape of Myanmar has changed signifcantly since former dictator Than Shwe paved the way for a series of wide‐ranging reforms in 2011. A nominally civilian government was sworn in and political prisoners were freed. Most visibly, long‐term opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi has ascended to power after her long‐banned opposition party – the National League of Democracy (NLD) – won the historic elections of 2015 by a wide margin. The country’s vibrant civil society also benefted from the lifting of restrictive laws on media and public mobilisation. Despite these remarkable transformations, Myanmar’s transition has seemingly slowed down and the space for progressive social and political action has contracted once again. Particularly worrying is the situation in the country’s borderlands, where long‐running sectarian conficts 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 signifcant challenges for civil society. In combination with fragility and confict, liberalising the public sphere has not only benefted progressive social and political action but has also enabled the growth of uncivil society,3 whose pursuit of exclusionary identity politics fuels sectarian violence..."