On 1 January 2013, Timor-Leste initiated a march on its own feet alone. The United Nations Integrated Mission in Timor-Leste (UNMIT), the last of the special missions which started in 1999, as well as the International Stabilization Force (ISF) convened in the wake of the 2006 crisis, departed then, heralding a new phase in this new nation's political life. The country has responded positively to this relevant change and maintains a stable political situation. The fact that in 2012 Timor-Leste organized presidential and legislative elections considered free and fair and to comply with international standards, symbolizing the regular functioning of democratic institutions, reinforced the country's legitimacy to fully dispose of political autonomy. As Damien Kingsbury has noted, meaningful elections capable of producing alterations in the orientation of the country seem to have been incorporated in the popular culture and became equated with ‘lulik’ (sacred) rituals (Kingsbury 2014b). Democratic practices are thus incorporated in traditional political values, a dimension that is often overlooked by the proponents of the ‘clash of paradigms’ theory. A clear symbol of this evolution can be grasped in the vivid images of citizens emerging from the polling booths and proudly exhibiting their ink-marked fingers as proof of their participation in the electoral process, discharging a community service. However, the apparent stability of the country in the recent past cannot be equated with the consolidation of democracy or the absence of serious challenges to the way the political regime responds to popular demands and delivers tangible outcomes. As Robert Elgie put it, Timor-Leste enjoys a stable but not yet consolidated democratic regime (Elgie 2011b).

At this point, we should return to the four items discussed in the last section of Chapter Two, and briefly review their importance. The first one was the need to allow the country enough time to develop a sequence of policies destined to foster democracy. Ten years is a reasonable frame, and the obvious conclusion is that a long road has been travelled – but the end is not yet in sight. Both Rustow (1970), who suggested a time frame of one generation, and Schmitter and Santiso (1998), who posited at least three legislatures, assert the need to be patient and allow for a longer period than the one Timor has had so far.