DYSFUNCTIONAL REBELS IN THE PHILIPPINES

What is the difference between rebels and revolutionaries?

Rebels are known for what they are against, while revolutionaries are known for what they are for—simple enough? In the Philippines, there are too many identified rebels but one can hardly notice any revolutionaries. Indeed, we have no shortage of rebels- people who can keenly express what they are against, but when asked what they are exactly for, they were less likely give you any specifics. Suddenly, the air become abstracts and motherhood statements abound. It gets far worse when they pressed to give anything regarding how they would accomplish this in greater detail.

Revolutions require more thinking than rebellions, since not only do revolutionaries need to work through the same processes that rebels do in order to bring down the present system, they also need to provide a better working alternative to the system they intend to replace–not necessarily in that order. There seems to be this naive tendency to expect that dismantling the present system automatically defaults into a better one simply by letting things take their course, as if burning down or destroying a building would automatically grow a better building like a phoenix rising out of the ashes without a strong follow-through or real effort to rebuild one. In regime changes, reformers tend to focus on solutions to the evils of the old system—evils they may correctly identify. However, as they turn out, we find a worse kind of evil in their place. Especially in the absence of planning and foresight and no real grasp of principles, like terrible chess players, when reformers are not too keen in covering all their bases, there will be serious consequences in areas that actually haven’t been anticipated.

The leaders a society chooses reflect very much on who or what the society is. In other words, leaders tend to be the projection—the very image of the collective than elected them into office. When a society is unable to weigh the situation soundly- logically or reasonably- and has a shallow grasp of equally sound governing principles, then they easily and quite naturally fall for the same type of leader. A results-oriented society who believes in personal accountability would choose the same type of leader. A society who falls for leaders lacking in accomplishments in their history of service is not a results-oriented society. A society who falls for leaders who spent most of their time opposing without offering a sounder alternative is likely to be simply a society of whiners and complainers. A society who supports rebels and not genuine revolutionaries is an anarchic society. A society who elects a leader with no viable platform or solution to its ills is a society with no realizable promise as a collective. A fickle and dishonorable society is a society who ousts a leader and yet re-elects the same leader for a sack of rice.
Which society are we?