"The people of Myanmar awoke to fear and confusion on February 1 as the Tatmadaw detained national leaders and lawmakers in Nay Pyi Taw ahead of the convening of the new parliament. Despite intermittent internet outages and a lack of information from state-run media, it soon became clear that the Tatmadaw had staged a coup. Within 48 hours, coordinated action against the seizure of power had begun. As the days wore on, the anti-coup campaign gained a name and a strategy: the Civil Disobedience Movement. Although this non-violent resistance movement was launched by government healthcare workers refusing to show up to work, it is largely an ad hoc campaign organised on the internet with no apparent leader. The CDM has galvanised millions to reject the military takeover of the government through sustained street protests, encouraged a boycott of military-owned or affiliated businesses, and, most vitally, inspired public servants to refuse to comply with directives from the military regime. A month from the coup, the devastating effect of millions of people working together to sabotage administration and the economy is being keenly felt. The strikes by public servants have slowed international trade to a crawl, government hospitals are having to turn away patients, and the banking system is unable to function, creating a cash crunch. What happens next will determine whether Myanmar is able to rid itself of the military junta or if millions will suffer pointlessly. There are five key challenges the CDM needs to address in order to win. The first challenge is to clarify and build consensus about what “success” means. Although there is universal agreement that the CDM rejects the military takeover of government, there is so far no consensus over what the campaign hopes to accomplish should the movement force the military to the negotiating table. At the moment, people on the streets are demanding paradoxical things. Many are calling for the regime to “respect our votes”, but activists from ethnic and religious minorities are not protesting in support of returning the National League for Democracy to power. Instead, they want to form a federal democracy based on a new or amended constitution. A lack of consensus is understandable given that the CDM is more than just street protests, a strike by government employees and a boycott of anything associated with the military. It is also a cultural sea change in which a new generation of activists is speaking up and taking the lead without looking to a source of authority for permission or approval. But without an agreement to pursue inclusive, justice-focused goals, it is easy to envision a future in which the concerns of minorities are again sacrificed for a settlement that the majority can accept, or one in which the movement suffers from infighting and then fails. The second challenge is the lack of clear leadership to both guide the CDM in its middle phase and be “in the room where it happens” at the end. Currently it seems that everyone in the CDM is involved with everything, without a clear sense of where each individual and group fits. This is extremely dangerous when confronting an organisation as highly organised and as well-resourced as the military..."