We are still to find any political operative, working within the local progressive circle in General Santos City, who publicly articulates the political concept of the so-called Transitional Revolutionary Government (TRG), which is hailed by many quarters in Manila as a genuine democratic alternative for the country.
This baffles us no end. Almost everyday, we witness how the men and women within the Laban ng Masa (LnM), a broad coalition of democratic left forces, struggled to articulate the TRG concept in all their national campaigns. Yet, their voices fail to reverberate at General Santos City’s political landscape, once a stronghold of democratic left forces.
We can only guess for reasons. Allow us to venture only on three: One, the local leadership of the LnM is unwilling to engage in the propagation of a highly activist proposal because of its conservative view of things; Two, the local LnM forces are too weak and are unable to situate themselves at the center of political discourse; and Three, the local LnM is dominated by people who still entertain fears for the unknown.
Whatever the reasons are for this shortcoming, we find it disgusting that this supposedly liberating political concept is not given prominence in the local political stage. To fill the gap, we decide to play the role of an explainer in behalf of LnM leaders in the city, so as not to deprive our local communities of the basic knowledge about this brilliant political concept.
Let us begin! The TRG is contextualized on the failure of the two EDSA people power revolutions which resulted only to regime change and not to system change, benefiting the masses. It finds moorings on the analysis that these people power revolutions merely resulted to the transfer of political power from one faction of the elite to another, with the masses merely serving as pawns in this endless contestation for pelf and power.
If there was any fatal flaw involving the two EDSAs, it was the failure of progressive forces to seize the opportunities offered by these dramatic political events; that is, to take control of state power to institute needed political reforms and eventually transform society.
Thus, TRG was conceptualized to avoid the repeat of the same mistake. In conformity with this concept, the People’s Council – composed of representatives of progressive sectors, social movements, civil society organizations and other allied social sections – shall be set up in time for the rupture of the Macapagal-Arroyo regime. It shall preside over the country’s transition from an elite-controlled democracy to such type of a democratic system that affords basic sectors and communities their meaningful access to political and economic power.
The TRG is a momentary state instrument; thus, it shall manage society’s affairs, through the People’s Council, only within the period of 60 to 90 days. Within this short time frame, the TRG shall institute political and electoral reforms (foremost shall be the weeding out of misfits in COMELEC), after attaining the objective and subjective conditions for the unhampered pursuit of such reforms.
Thereafter, the TRG shall call for the convening of the Constitutional Convention, under a genuinely democratic climate, to free the Philippine Constitution from the vestiges of colonialism and capitalism and for the holding of synchronized national and local elections, within a well-leveled electoral playing field.
Admittedly, as human project, the TRG concept is not free from flaws. For instance, it is yet to clearly define how the highly factionalized military and the capitalist-owned media networks shall be dealt with during the precarious period of social reconstruction. We are not also so sure whether social reconstruction efforts could be effectively pursued, following the expected rupture of the prevailing regime, in the absence of a potent social base supportive of the TRG.
The escalation of political discourses at the local level could help solve the puzzle. Unfortunately, this is not happening in General Santos City.
The democratic left forces, armed with a better political alternative, have more reasons to pursue their own revolutionary ideals more vigorously. Therefore, they should not evade; they should not run away.
When Mao Tse-Tung said that one of the marks of true revolutionaries is their mastery of the art of running away, he was not actually making a funny description of guerilla warfare. He was merely joking!
