In considering a military dictatorship such as the Government of Burma, it is easy to see only its crudity and absurdity — the needless poverty of its people, the ludicrous verbiage of the official rhetoric and the judicial persecution of the country’s rightful leader, Aung San Suu Kyi. It is also easy to assume that such governments have an inbuilt obsolescence, that the march of history must fell Senior General Than Shwe, just as it brought down dozens of despots in Asia and the former Soviet bloc at the end of the 20th century.

But if Burma’s generals are cruel, stubborn and pompous, they are also cunning and strategic. The State Peace and Development Council, as it styles itself, is a junta with a plan, and yesterday’s conviction and sentencing of Ms Suu Kyi is part of its unfolding.

If it all works out, then within a few years the Burmese Government will cease to be an assembly of tinpot generals with the political credibility of toy soldiers and be reborn as a superficially civilian regime. It will not by any means be a responsive democratic government, but it will be easier for those countries that would prefer to ignore its iniquities to defend.

The point about Ms Suu Kyi’s 18-month sentence is that it will prevent her from taking any direct part in the biggest political upheaval in Burma for five years: next year’s scheduled general election and the introduction of a new constitution.

By any standards, the whole undertaking is flawed from beginning to end. The “national convention” that drew up the plans excluded Ms Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy (NLD). The constitution guarantees the continued dominance of the military, and the election is likely to be fixed; in the referendum on the constitution last year an unfeasible 92 per cent of voters approved of it — after a turnout of 99 per cent.

The election, and the government it produces, will fool no one in London, Washington or the capitals of Europe. But so low is the moral base from which it is beginning, almost any reform the junta introduces can be framed as an improvement. The plan, in any case, is not intended to sway the contempt of the democratic West, but to appeal to Burma’s near neighbours, who have a much more complicated relationship with the regime.

The exemplar of such governments — the most successful Asian dictator of recent memory — was the late Suharto of Indonesia. For 32 years, he suppressed political opposition and imposed his personal rule on a vast and diverse nation while being accepted and even hailed in southeast Asia and beyond.

He achieved this by dressing up what was in effect a military dictatorship in the weeds of an authoritarian democracy. Opposition parties were allowed — but strictly on Suharto’s terms. Elections were rigged, but subtly and elaborately enough for the imposture not to be too obvious.

There are obvious differences from Burma. Suharto did not have to deal with a figure as charismatic or internationally respected as Ms Suu Kyi — and eventually, in 1998, even he was driven from power after an economic collapse.

But if General Than Shwe discreetly retires, to be replaced by a more articulate, congenial “retired” general in a well-cut suit, many foreign governments will sigh with relief.

Southeast Asian neighbours such as Thailand will be able to continue their valuable commercial relationships with Burma in gems, oil, natural gas and hydroelectric power. Russia and China will be able to go on selling arms and extending their influence over the highly strategic territory.

And the generals and their families will be able to continue pocketing the profits.

Times Recommends

• Twitter in trouble over Sarkozy affairs rumour
• North Koreans fear another devastating famine
• Want to be a genius? Practise, says geneticist