When it became clear that Aung San Suu Kyi was heading for an overwhelming victory in the Myanmar election her words were the following: “The winner must be humble and avoid actions that can offend others. Real victory must be for the country, not for a group or individuals.”

Contrast that with the words of our own President Jacob Zuma, speaking at his party conference when he said, “I argued one time with somebody who said the country comes first: I think my organisation, the ANC comes first.”

Those few words encapsulate the difference between the two leaders. Daw Suu, as she is known, leads the National League for Democracy (NLD), which has won the support of over eighty percent of the voters. President Zuma leads a political party (always rather affectedly referred to as the “movement” or the “organisation”) which seems to be losing support. Perhaps the difference in their approach explains a good deal.

When I first met Daw Suu, as she is known, in Yangon in 2010, I described her afterwards as “ethereal” and compared her with Nelson Mandela. She did not have a bad word to say about anyone. Even the military who had kept her under house arrest for decades had “treated her well.”

In that first meeting, she seemed to have a sublime faith in the future of her country. I talked about the politics of the long haul (a phrase made famous by the late Colin Eglin), implying that it might be a very long time before real political progress would be made. She would have none of it. She told me that Mandela had been seventy when he was released, whereas she was “only sixty-five.”

To my mind, there was an essential difference between Myanmar and South Africa. The release of Mandela was the start of a process towards a negotiated solution; in Myanmar- certainly in my talks with the leaders of government – they ­­seemed to think her release was the end of the process.

The chief whip of the majority Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP) dismissed her as of no political consequence and a year after her release told me he did not think she would be permitted to contest the by-elections that subsequently swept her party into parliament.

 During that same visit I told the senior cabinet member who received me that if Myanmar wanted the world to accept the sincerity of its reform endeavours, his government needed to ensure that the by-elections were free and fair, with the result, whatever it might be, being accepted by the government.

I stressed repeatedly that South Africa was not arrogant about democracy: we were only learning how to run a democratic country and we had not yet passed the essential test of the government being voted out and power passing through the ballot box. I offered our experience of a democratic transition if they wanted or needed our help.

During successive visits, I engaged in meetings with many ambassadors, interest groups, NGOs and international organisations, attempting to assess whether the movement towards reform was real. A few prescient individuals said the change was genuine, but most believed there would be little if any further progress for many years to come.

Some of them, including the ambassador of a major western country, urged me to appeal to the South African government to become much more involved because they felt we had a role to play. This was not possible because of resources and distance and because I was not a resident ambassador in Yangon.

I must confess that I was skeptical about the capacity of the NLD. How wrong I was. Initially they seemed set on boycotting elections instead of fighting them. At each meeting in their shabby offices (as opposed to the palatial premises occupied by the USDP), the NLD senior leadership all seemed far too old and negative.

It was only after the by-elections and the overwhelming success of the NLD that I really began to believe that President Thein Sein was in earnest about reform.

 There were still many doubters in the international community, especially the NGO community, who pooh-poohed the “cosmetic changes,” correctly pointing out the areas not being reformed. Many governments, however, including the USA, the UK and our own government, encouraged and recognised the progress there had been.

President Thein Sein should be recognised for his achievements, ranking with those of President FW de Klerk and Mr Gorbachev.

I remained concerned about Daw Suu being co-opted by her government, rather like the Zimbabwean coalition that enabled President Mugabe to steal back the power by chewing up his opposition counterpart, Mr Morgan Tsvangirai, before spitting him out.

During my visit to Myanmar earlier this year, it became obvious that ordinary people had changed and were now ready to speak out and support “the Lady.”

The constitution precludes someone with children with a foreign nationality from becoming president. Daw Suu received much advice from sceptics that the election was flawed because of this and because of the exclusion of some minorities from the poll. She ignored this advice and her effective campaign saw her NLD achieve the unthinkable: an absolute parliamentary majority despite the reservation of 25% of the seats for the military.

Who could have expected this only five years after her release? Now she must show that she can govern in the interests of all citizens and of the country. One prays for her success and hopes that at age seventy she will ensure she is succeeded by leaders who truly put the country first.

One hopes that Myanmar will be different and not have the South African outcome of a giant like Mandela succeeded by the fourth president who simply does not match up in terms of moral authority and who believes that the “organisation” comes first, before the country.

Douglas Gibson is a former Opposition Chief Whip and a former ambassador to Myanmar.

This article first appeared in The Star.