YESTERDAY I followed Step 1 of the 3-steps-to-revolutionary-government-and-federalism instructions put forward by Network Revolution and allied organizations. That is, I watched the Facebook live feeds of two mobilizations in Davao, the main one at the Crocodile Park and another one at Freedom Park.
Others have already commented on the huge difference in numbers between the November 30 Crocodile Park rally and the May 7, 2016 oneheld at the same venue which, while marketed as a bid to break the Guinness World Record for the Simultaneous Singing of the National Anthem, was clearly a final push for the electoral victory of then candidate Rody Duterte.
The marked disparity in attendance could indicate many things. At the very least, it signals hesitation to endorse an ill-conceived approach to a reform that while popular, remains poorly understood. People may be open to federalism, which despite all the other rationales put forward in the RevGov declaration, seems to be the crux of the agenda. But it is uncertain whether concentrating power in the hands of the president, scrapping the 1987 Philippine Constitution and declaring a federal system, which could be characterized as one fell swoop, is the way to go.
The numbers could also indicate that more of the President’s supporters are discerning and thus avoided succumbing to the simplistic argument and obviously siren song that the President faces opposition and needs absolute powers to achieve his change agenda.
A speaker at the Crocodile Park mobilization described RevGov as a people’s initiative. But it is not clear whether it refers to the third mode for amending the Constitution (because RevGov’s call is for totally replacing it), to an effort to directly initiate a law(because no document has been submitted for discussion or deliberation), or is simply a generic description of mass mobilizations.
The Crocodile Park speeches referred to Christians, Muslims, and other religions. But indigenous peoples (IPs) were not recognized in the substantive portions of the rally. Is this indicative of what would befall IPs under federalism, which is supposed to address skewed political relationships? IPs are among the most politically marginalized; their governance systems ignored, eroded, and even misappropriated. Mike Macapagal, the PDP-Laban speaker from Luzon, made much of the point that he was in a rally in Mindanao. But Mindanao cannot be fully appreciated without recognizing that it is home to at least 60% of the country’s IP population.
Indigenous communities were more visible and had broader representation in the downtown Davao mobilization, which a program later showed to be a Prayer Rally. However, an Ata group’s cultural performance was introduced as an “intermission,” which in general usage is understood to be an interval in the main action and not necessarily part of it. The person called to speak for Badjaos cracked a joke about then Mayor Rody Duterte saying they should be “Goodjaos” instead of Badjaos. He attested that indeed that was what he was, a Goodjao. I found the shouts of “amen!” to his message odd. Later it turned out that the Badjao speaker was a pastor.
It might have been unintentional, but was the interpretive dance performed at the Crocodile Park to the Simon and Garfunkel song “The Sound of Silence” illustrative of federalism’s critique of the past and present? Or a prophetic description of a future under it? Garfunkel explained that the song is about “the inability of people to communicate with each other, not particularly internationally but also emotionally, so what you see around you are people unable to love each other.”
Somebody else noted that the RevGov mobilizations mostly used tarps and there were no placards or streamers. Certainly there were none of the spontaneous, makeshift and often witty protest materials used by millennials. Standardized messages could mean a high level of organization. But it could also imply a lack of personal engagement among those present.
The PDP-Laban representative’s speech ended with "’Pag sinabi ni Duterte ‘tumalon!,’ ang isasagot natin, ‘Mayor, gaano kataas?’” (if Duterte says ‘jump!,’ our response is ‘Mayor, how high?’).The party once defined itself by standing up to a violent dictatorship and espousing nationalism in the country’s economy.
Audre Lorde criticized unexamined racism and homophobia among feminist academics of her time saying: “the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house.”
But in a sense it is applicable to RevGov as well.
Inadequate transparency on the details of the change agenda and process has been used by political elites to limit participation in discourse, contain the scope of discussion, and manipulate its outcome. Exclusion and misrepresentation—the default behavior of dominant groups throughout history—will not break down their monopolistic grip on power. Servility, which has been used by various power aspirants to flatter, get on the good side of, and advance their agenda with the bosses, will not change and in fact only reinforce the bosses’ inflated sense of self-importance, narcissism, and lack of regard for the feelings of others.
Among Davaoeños, not one group has monopoly over concern for change. This is part of the resources that will help us see through and overcome current divides. That a society in crisis cannot be transformed using the same means that corrupted it and prop up those who profit from the damage is a relevant message for all.
*****
Email feedback to magszmaglana@gmail.com