¿Is it really “revolutionary”?
Notes on Duterte’s call for a “Revolutionary Government”
(And why people think it is unlikely)
It may sound easier to declare a "Revolutionary Government" even its obvious essence is actually isn't.
Basing on President Duterte's promises, threats, and various statements; as well as supported by the applausive statements of his supporters, that the "Revolutionary Government" of his be like a "packaged solution" to all the problems ranging from lawlessness to poverty, no matter how counterrectionary it is in its actual form.
How come it is worth describing as counterreactionary than revolutionary? Is it because of Duterte himself with his arsenic statements? His Neoliberal and militarist-inclined ministers? The system whom supported the administration since day one? The victims of extrajudicial killings?
Anyway, reality has a way of tripping people especially if eyes are shut or unaware of it.
At first, it is no sooner had the present regime would have thought or babbled much about "revolutionary government" as if an antidote to everything, or actually gone triggered by those whom opposing, obviously the reality had that regime stumbling that wasn't there: the need for domestic-based development, if not a desire for a real social change.
And in the frenzy over various system-sponsored matters, ranging from homeless taking over abandoned mass housing sites to protests against unjust jeepney phaseouts, or even extrajudicial killings and rising costs of commodities, those who favour that "revolutionary government" or any other statement coming from the order is also madly babbling against the those who expressing their discontents, that also became an instant dodo in social media sites.
But in those desperate times reality has barged into every head what the real issue is. Call it communism, socialism, or any other names easily equated to terrorism against the people or subversion against an established order, but that reality such as those of people demanding that "goddamn social change" is a response to the ever prevailing crisis a country continues to face through decades. But those who had insulted that demand by advancing so unreal such as clamouring for a so-called "revolutionary" government failed to notice that the "revolution" they desire is nothing but a counterreaction if not a reaction itself: that if they hated oligarchs so much, then how come at the same time they accommodate them so madly particularly the outsider who offered a pride-happy state exorbitant loans? Will that "revolution" a developing one the way they take pride in building roads and bridges or degenerate as people being forced to pay the loans borrowed by that "revolutionary" state through higher prices of goods and services?
Sorry to say but in spite of all the efforts, the truth everyone noticed shows that the standard bearer Duterte is no Lenin, Stalin, nor even Bonaparte or Gaddafi; for as long as he remained a lapdog of the old order who funded and benefited from some (if not most) of his policies then what kind of change he and his fanatics babbled about? The rest end gasped when reports concerning extrajudicial killings been seen throughout. What had happened to the ones swore to uphold rule of law? Quo vadis? Sprang to each and every lips. And that question continues to haunt the system not just its standard bearer who chose to vent rage using his arsenic mouth against the opposition, while mum towards the system who invested from most of his policies.
Tell the man in the street, who hath faced with high prices, less wages, and the guns of the state, that his great problem, that the real danger was those who opposed the interest-seekers in the government, or even those who demand for social change, whatever ism it may be, and he may end thinking he/she is babbling latin or greek or anything in between; if not he himself countering their statements with the fact that no reform comes from an order who failed to enact it, for the fact that the person whom they telling about is aware on what goes on around him such as scalawags killing innocents or oppositionists using the term "war on drugs".
On the other hand, if Duterte and his apologists stubbornly insisting that the "revolutionary government" they yearned badly also deals with development, of promising to fulfill people's desires for land reform, national industrialisation, and the like; but with those who hinder those desires been at the president’s side, then of what is revolutionary when reactionaries are with him? For sure they will say words like “reform” in order to make numerous and “realistic changes”, but who truly benefits from it: is it the common man or the ones who profited from the administration?
Well, sorry to them if people are increasingly skeptical about that “revolutionary government”, especially coming from a standard bearer whose crew aren’t even “revolutionary”. From the looks of Aguirre, Dominguez, Año, and Mocha Uson, perhaps will their bloodstained-profit oriented “revolution” from above worth fighting for by the millions of Filipinos desiring for change?
If that's the case, in an era where everything is as updated like this Hewlett-Packard laptop, that yearning creates a scenario that is 1973-ish, if not leading to an 1986 or 1968-like. Duterte, from at first assuming to be as "socialist" as the socialists, then unveiling his neoliberal agendas, and finally toying with dictatorship using the word "revolutionary government", made this person think that he is like any other counterreaction who, whilst trying to counter the reaction, is still upholding the order with some piecemeal "reforms" enough to call consolidation as "change".