The leftist activists, recruited out of the lower-class masa (masses) act out of anger and desperation. They only see the injustices done to them and their comrades. Of the people they recruit, for those with similar experiences of injustice and/or lower class circumstances, they encourage anger. For those who have more comfortable lives, they first encourage sympathy, then once this exists they can encourage anger.
For the activists, anger feeds self-righteousness which in turn feeds their courage. This is why the activists must always be angry. They point out the examples of injustices but never those which exhibit justice. If ever it is pointed out to them that the government has done some good deeds, they interpret it as actually a fault, or as a cover up for faults, or as possibly leading to faults in the long-run. If it is proven that the good deed is none of these three, they say such a good deed is irrelevant what with the bad things outnumbering the good.
The activists are selfish, but this is understandable because the circumstances of their lives have made them desperate and they understand that fighting back is their way of surviving. The activists are emotional. They are like the mother of a murdered child who sees the only suspect walk away because of insufficient evidence. This mother will, in her rage, seek to kill this suspect in the name of justice. However, this justice is based on anger, desperation and selfishness.
The way to appease the activists is to remove injustices, but not through giving power to them. If power is given to the activists, because they are emotional, undesirable consequences may ensue. As in the French Revolution, they will destroy all those who oppose their views.
If you give an angry, selfish, desperate and self-righteous person a gun, he will likely cause more injustices than the number of injustices done to him, and he will even be proud of it or at least not aware of it.
In contrast, the impartial statesman understands the reason behind letting a murder suspect go free due to insufficient evidence. The statesman understands that despite whatever injustice was experienced, all citizens, even the despicable ones, have the same rights. The government’s inability to protect its citizens’ rights and to uphold its laws or even to uphold just laws makes people’s anger and desperation at a faulty system understandable.
However, the statesman is an active reformer whereas the activist is a whiner. The statesman seeks the improvement of society while the activist seeks its destruction. I say this because when the statesman sees injustices or even experiences it, his next move after the inevitable human reaction of negative emotions is to see how such things may be prevented in the future. There is a desire to improve and the statesman actively seeks this improvement. In contrast, when the activist experiences injustices the inevitable human reaction of negative emotions remain permanent. The attitude is that of pointing fingers, and the activist is fond of saying, “Tama na! Sobra na! Patalsikin si politico! Ibagsak ang gobyerno!” (Stop it! Enough! Oust the politicians out of office! Bring down the government!) This is always directed towards their enemies and seldom to themselves.
The activists point out the faults of their enemies but never their own. They are reactionary and short-sighted. Their only goal is to remove the person perceived to be behind the injustices, but beyond that they have no idea what ought to happen except for a rather vague ideal of a just and prosperous society.
Meanwhile, the statesman who is not influenced by emotion can analyze the problems objectively, probing into deeper causes, and so is likely able to provide better solutions with more desirable long-term consequences.