"Abstract: Myanmar’s rallying cry do ayei (‘our cause’) encodes a structural duality that this article takes as its organising problem: ayei means both ‘cause’ and ‘inscription.’ Since 1988, the cause has been claimed repeatedly; the inscription has not followed. No binding compact co-signed across ethnic lines has emerged from three decades of resistance. The military understood this gap before the resistance did, capturing do ayei as constitutional obligation within two years of the 1988 uprising. This article asks why Burmese resists horizontal political inscription and what building it would require. Drawing on linguistic analysis of pronouns, verbs, and documentary genres; a border workshop in which resistance participants attempted to compose horizontal compact sentences in Burmese; bilingual scoring of twelve constitutional texts spanning 1878 to 2026; and comparative analysis of mid-conflict declarations from the Atlantic Charter to the Federal Democracy Charter, it identifies six reinforcing impediments, each expressing a single structural condition in which Burmese political culture defaults to the individual as the unit of revolutionary agency: sacral confinement of the political domain, a grammatical default to hierarchy, soteriological orientation inward, the absence of any sacralizing mechanism for horizontal obligation, systematic co-option of resistance vocabulary, and a documentary asymmetry that confines compact-making expertise to the ethnic periphery. Every document in the corpus scores higher in horizontal commitment in English than in Burmese; the gap measures a structural condition, not a translation problem. The article concludes that the drafter’s task is assembly, not recovery: no single Burmese political term survives stress-testing as genuinely horizontal, but compromised components can be combined so that the cracks do not align. The ethnic nationality organizations who have maintained continuous compact-making traditions since 1947 hold the engineering knowledge the Bamar centre lacks. The Burmese case exposes a precondition Derrida’s (1986) paradox of self-constitution left unexamined: that the language of a founding declaration can carry a horizontal collective pronoun. When it cannot, the declaration constitutes not citizens but subjects, and the founding paradox shifts from political (who authorized the signer?) to material (what did the declaration actually bring into being?). The compact must accomplish what grammar, soteriology, and revolutionary tradition have not: the constitution of a collective political subject..."