More than 3 years ago, I was with my brod Jerome coming home from a class gimmick. We were in Bulacan, and it was night. I was looking on the road not knowing what would happen.
Suddenly, an old man (seemed to be drunk, but definitely old) was hit on his bike's bars and he dropped - in God's grace, he did not get hit again - in the middle of the road. It seems that the truck hit him and did not bother to stop.
I did not see it. But Jerome, who was driving, did.
Jerome pursued the truck, and signalled for the driver to stop. Without incident, the driver halted the vehicle, and another person, we learned, was following the truck. Jerome explained to the driver that they hit a person and that they did not stop. I sensed the moment Jerome stepped out of the car that he was ready to go to a fight if the driver and his co-worker denied the incident. I was just behind him, ready to back him up but not to start any fight.
The other person who was following "us" turned out to be the city's previous mayor. I don't remember his name, but he introduced himself as such. We decided it would be helpful if the two guys would turn themselves in the police precinct to file a report of the incident.
When we continued to go home (after going back to the place to try to find the old biker, unsuccessfully), I told Jerome that I did not expect that from him, nor did I think that I would rather do that. It was admirable. Jerome said it was nothing. Anyone that witnessed that could have done that, he said. I don't think I would, though.
* * *
When I was on my way to work, heard of two adult men talking about EDSA "revolution." I don't know actually what they were talking, but I just thought that they could have been comparing EDSA 1 and 2. I didn't have confidence in either. The change was personal and not for the nation. The nation's pinning of hope on the people that assumed position were futile. Now, somebody wants to change the change that happened.
To those who think of revolution as the sort of the things soldiers do now is stupid - it's never going to be effective - effective meaning that there would be genuine change. A revolution is not just done to express unsatisfaction, rather it is to change the system and behavior of the nation. No EDSA ever did that.
A better format or plan for revolution could be gotten out of our own history - the first revolution of the Filipino people - led by Andres Bonifacio. Not the EDSAs, but in in Tagalog.
Andres Bonifacio, perceived as an empathic man of the poor, conceived a perfect revolution, perhaps taking note of the failures and successes of the revolutions he has read about - like the French Revolution. He conceived of a constitution (of sorts), a government, a process of change, objectives, and national unity. While alternative history points out that he was not leading a national revolution but just a local revolution, it is a model of a revolution in itself. He did not think of Intramuros alone, but a lot of provinces then.
* * *
Use of the media should be appropriate. The current attitude of the media would not guarantee the unity of the nation - it would rather guarantee a divided country and politics-based government. Instead, they should be used into their true purpose: public announcement. In a nation torn by uncertainty, the leaders of a revolution should provide the exact words, and control the media so that they don't make any stupid implications or interpretations of behavior or report on trivial, unimportant events just to focus out of things which they feel are not in their interest (which is what is happening right now). Their role of being the Fourth Estate would be returned after the new government
* * *
Soldiers should not - note, NEVER - be involved. The repeated inclusion of the military in a revolution weakens any new government. The government should use the military, not depend on it. The military is nothing but an arm - an arm, which is important, but an arm still. It does not have the heart nor the mind for the whole of the country.
Further, the inclusion of the military in a political exercise will make the future military organization political, which is something no military should ever be. The military would not attack the people's revolution if it is a national uprising. Thus, this would really reflect the role of both sides - the people and the military. The people should lead, not rely on the government, in nationbuilding. The military would only reflect the nation's interest - after all government agencies have failed. This condition is easy if all people are united in launching a revolution. When this happens, real change would be expected, a long-term one.
A political military weakens the nation as a whole. The military becomes involved easily in a power vacuum. The political leadership uses the military for personal purposes. It is a continuously circling down of deterioration.
* * *
In case there is a fear of the government's commanding of attacking the people, this will not happen. We are already in a global community. The media, while stupid, would look on any military attack on the people as an attack on its own interest. An attack of the military is worse than martial rule - it is military dictatorship - an environment that cannot be tolerated by the "freedom of expression" loving media.
* * *
Andres Bonifacio modeled the correct development of a revolution. A lot of people pronounce their plan to a lot of stupid and loud-mouthed people. Bonifacio used the Triangle method. One person recruited only two other people, who each in turn recruited another two. Thus, no person knows other people until they had a mass formation, which is rather very close to the time of mass uprising.
* * *
Today's Philippines execute the revolution in two critical players: the military and the media. Unless the leaders of a revolution understand the role of these two in a national revolution, there are only two consequences of a revolution - change of personality with a deterioriating nation, or anarchy. While Andres Bonifacio did not have the benefit of hindsight then (how in...?), he did have the proper understanding of these things. Sure, the situation is different, with a more popular media and more centralized military. But their roles do not change in a nation undergoing a critical process such as a cultural and political revolution. The people's will has to be identified and solidified, supported by these institutions on the background but not being led by them.
No comments:
Post a Comment