In the case of revolutionary organizations (which is really an oxymoron), their most important means of leverage in their relationship with the power they oppose, is their ability to control the opposition. That is, their capacity to de-mobilize their supporters in exchange for concessions from power. They want to be invited to the negotiating table as the most influential representatives of the opposition.
The reality is, both their mobilization and their de-mobilization are nothing more than tactics to improve their position to bargain with power; not to overthrow it. Never mind their rhetoric to the contrary.
They are not actually interested in fundamentally changing the system, because they are an integral part of the system; they operate within it, are invested in it, and truly fundamental change is as much against their interests as it is against the interests of power. This leads them to employ strictly symbolic tactics of opposition, to try to draw the authorities into negotiations, hoping to be given some sort of position within the power structure. No doubt, they have the best of intentions, based on their unquestioned assumption that their presence in government provides a solution in and of itself.
Here we see an intellectual error which has undermined effective opposition tactics. The exclusive focus on the government; seeking to topple it, or seeking to join it, or seeking to influence it, largely misses the real point. Any analysis of the foreign or domestic political policy of any nation that does not include a thorough evaluation of the interests of multinational corporations (MNCs) in those policies is inherently flawed. Any activist response organized on the basis of such an analysis will also, obviously, be misguided. There is a severe lack of sovereignty and independence, and the government is essentially subordinate to private power. Seeking a seat in government is not at all a guarantee of being able to pursue social and political change.
Finally, there are individuals regarded as leaders who, frankly, have neither the qualifications or experience or ideas to usefully serve in such a role.
Passion, charisma, and popularity in the absence of vision and strategy, and combined with the desire to be in the public eye, cannot lead to productive results. Instead, it will lead to fiery but vague demagoguery, inciting people to rise up, just to try to create momentum without direction. This is tremendously dangerous when there is already a segment of the population desperately frustrated and angry. You can’t go around lighting fuses when you don’t know whether they are attached to bombs or to candles.