The Taylor & Francis journal, Strategic Analysis, Volume 37, Issue 1, 2013  has an interesting debate about this question. The comment / argument from K. Yhome perhaps best sketches against which earlier events the change must be seen:

1) killing of protesting monks in september 2007 in a country where monks are highly revered. this may have divided the military

2) events that were strongly critisized home and abroad - aftermath of cyclone Nargis in 2008

3) attack on ethnic group on chinese border, pushing refugees into china, this leading to criticism from china

Together this may have increased disconsensus amongst the military, who then opted for change. 

 Orther comments question the degree of change however. 

You may find  some good points in these:

1. Taylor, R. H. (2012). Myanmar: From army rule to constitutional rule?. Asian Affairs, 43(2), 221-236.

2. Hlaing, K. Y. (2012). Understanding recent political changes in Myanmar. Contemporary Southeast Asia: A Journal of International and Strategic Affairs, 34(2), 197-216.

3. Kingsbury, D. (2014). Political Transition in Myanmar: Prospects and Problems. Asian Politics & Policy, 6(3), 351-373.

4. Lee, L. (2014). Myanmar's Transition to Democracy: New Opportunities or Obstacles for India?. Contemporary Southeast Asia: A Journal of International and Strategic Affairs, 36(2), 290-316.

5. Jones, L. (2013). Explaining Myanmar’s Democratisation: The Periphery is Central. Paper presented at workshop on ‘Challenging Inequalities: Contestation and Regime Change in East and Southeast Asia’, Murdoch University, Perth, 12-13 July 2013.

ALL THE BEST.

Since taking office in march 2011,  the new  President, U Thein Sein has taken several steps towards democratization.  His government has freed a number of political prisoners and taken several steps to liberalize the state-controlled economy.   Aung Saan Suu Kyi and  her party could return to the politics of the country and participated in a Parliamentary election. Suu Kyi won a seat in the parliament with her party having secured majority almost everywhere they participated.  After her party won the election, Suu Kyi made international tours covering neighbouring countries like Thailand as well as  far away countries like UK and France.  This has been her first foreign tour in last two decades. Myanmar, after a long period of time  played host to international leaders  like Hillary Clinton on her soil. In consequence of the transition towards  democracy,  Myanmar experienced some relaxations over  the sanctions previously imposed by the US and other western countries.  

Since 1962, Myanmar has been undergoing several changes. The nationalization efforts of Ne Win were an unsuccessful move which could not help the country in its development. Contrarily, it took the common people towards more deprivation. The successive eras of SLORC and SPDC too could do little for the country’s development. In 2005, the ruling SPDC moved the country’s capital from Yangon to Naypyitaw, a well-decorated and beautiful place. But unfortunately this is not the real picture everywhere in Myanmar. Though the country gets lots of foreign investors for its oil and natural gas resources, it ensures little benefit for the common people. Myanmar is rich in resources, but it has been suffering from the ‘resource curse’. The concept of resource curse suggests that countries with large storages of natural resources often perform worse in terms of economic growth, social development and good governance than other countries with fewer resources (Humphreys et. El. 2007). Any improvement from the current situation would require involvement and participation of everybody concerned in a comprehensive and logical way. The government in Myanmar needs to understand that democratization and decentralization would perhaps be helpful in exploring the resources in a rightful way. Here we may recall what Suu Kyi said after her release, “What we want is value change…Regime change can be temporary, but value change is a long-term business. We want the values in our country to be changed. We want a sound foundation for change. Even if there’s regime change, if these basic values have not changed, then one regime change can lead to another regime change and so on and so on”  (New York Times 2010).  

At the end, the question still remains unsolved- at what speed should democracy be restored in the country? The military claims that swift and sudden changes in the political structure of the country may fragment the nation, so what it needs is military supported democracy in a step-by-step manner. On the other hand, the pro-democratic supporters urge that it’s already too late for restoration of democracy for the country that has been facing authoritarian rule since last 48 years. Their expectations from the present ‘civilian’ government are much higher. It is true that restoration of democracy in Myanmar has been more compounded by the very fact of its neighbours’s appeasing attitude towards the government of Myanmar. Often enough the global political leaders from other countries, especially the West have repeatedly urged India and China to react firmly against the previous military government of Myanmar and described the November 2010 election as a hoax one. To quote Barack Obama, the election “failed to meet any of the internationally accepted standards associated with legitimate elections” (Wilson 2010). But the fact is that whatever the US and her allies from the western world have expressed as their concern for the democratic rights of the people of Myanmar is another example of diplomatic hypocrisy and nothing else. If their concerns were genuine, then how  have they been allowing investments in the country? Companies like the US-based Chevron and the French Total SA have invested huge amounts of money in the oil and natural gas exploration in Myanmar and of course, their Governments are not unaware of their operations.  Such games played by the international leaders were actually making profits for the government of Myanmar and lessening the chance of restitution of democracy in the country.  

In the conclusion we may now remember what Suu Kyi had said in 1999, “… I am not very happy with the word hope. I don’t believe in people just hoping. We work for what we want. … one has no right to hope without endeavor, so we wok to try and bring about the situation that is necessary for the country, and we are confident that we will get to the negotiation table at one time or another” (Time World, 1999). This implies her beliefs very clearly. She believes in peoples’ involvement in the movement, she believes in negotiation and she believes that in one day or another the democratic movement will win. Perhaps, peoples’ participation, negotiation and patience are the three keywords of Myanmar’s democratic movement which can secure a better world for tomorrow. Finally, it should be noted that the transition to democracy, though being late, is a welcome move and perhaps, Myanmar should be given some more time for its complete transformation. Chances are there that Myanmar will represent a unique model of political system where authoritarian rulers and democratic leaders will be able to work jointly to resolve the current socio-economic problems. The recently changed behavior of the government towards Daw Aung San Suu Kyi should not be overlooked and definitely grows some optimism.  

http://www.ipcs.org/special-report/myanmar/myanmar-pangs-of-democratic-transition-130.html