Monday, September 19, 2016

The 21st Panglong Political Metaphor[ism]: A Utopian Federal System for the 135 Ethnic Minorities in Burma.

Shawnghtoi Lahpai
3mins ·

Principle of Metaphor and Its Associated Politics:
A figure in “rhetoric” in which the meaning of one word is transferred onto and in a certain sense combined with that of another, being constructed as same attitude as a simile. Whereas it abandons the implicative words like “like” and “as” so that the statement that “that man is like a pig” is juxtaposed onto the unrealistic conclusion that “the man is pig.” A certain metaphor game is played for the legitimacy of imperialism and its effects.
For instance,
The first Panglong treaty sculptured between the stated-represented-ethnic nationalities and Burmans essentially has two historical dimensions. First, it is in a way of generating a colossal strength and a collective unity amongst ethnic nationalities and burmans in order to meet the criterion of uniformity demanded to meet the achievement of the Burma’s independence from British colonialism. Second, it is, politically, to create the country as a union instead of a unitary country in its character.
In a metaphoric view, the 1947 Panglong accord rightly states in which all seven state represented ethnic nationalities and Bama altogether eight are made a unanimous consent to co-exist with the federal democratic system in Burma.
However, in a rhetoric of the 21st century Panglong, the issue of 135 groups of peoples, which was created by the military junta in 1989, has hoisted one of the major agenda in all ongoing talks. In the same way, Aung San Suu Kyi disclosed this issue convincing President Obama during the oval interview last week. She remarked to the President that the presence of 135 different ethnic peoples has been something that refers that a federal democratic system might not be the right mean of political solution in Burma.
She played a metaphoric politics hereby that the being of ethnic diversities in Burma merely justifies to the western world, informing “there is disunity or incapability or divisions among ethnic minorities” to implement a federal system in Burma since its independence.
In fact, the Panglong agreement is just like a covenant where the exiting ethnic nations did not agree to sign each accord for the creation of political divisions, fractions and disunities, but did gave their political commitment to be united under “the rule of federal democracy in Burma.”
On a contrary, the 21st century Panglong under the supervision of Aung San Suu Kyi has put up a rhetorical game with respect to the 47 Panglong by interposing/translating a different and a disagreeable statement. It states that “the Panglong federal system is singled out political divisions and in capabilities among ethnic peoples and subsequently, it is an unattainable political system in Burma.”
Current political trend does shift of its rhetorical concept from the reality of the federal democracy of the eight ethnic (the state and collective ethnic representing federal union) representations based on the 1947 Panglung agreement to unlikely to be accommodating in the new federal union for the 135 ethnic groups in Burma.
In fact, this political notion being manufactured in the country by the current NLD led regime, which is still backed up by the Burman military wing, has lobbied their political rhetoric to be legitimated both inside the country and international faces outside.
At any rate, in view of metaphoric analyst like me, the feeding of the rhetorical notion of the unacceptability of the 135 ethnic minorities' federal system in Burma against the collective eight ethnic federal democracy system in Burma merely demystifies a sort of neo-imperialism of the dominant Bama against the rest in Burma.