Author Cesar Polvorosa Jr. is a business school professor of economics, world geography, and international business management in Canada. He is also a published writer in economics, business, and literature.
That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history. — Aldous Huxley
Filipinos have failed miserably in their choice of leaders. From an early promise of a rosy and affluent future after World War 2, poor governance shackled the Philippines in poverty, inequality, and underdevelopment for much of the past decades. High rates of criminality and corruption as well as a festering insurgency continue to plague the nation.
Filipinos have shown remorse in their choice of leaders by resorting to the parliament of the streets at critical times. One governance crisis after another consequently convulsed the country. Filipinos kicked out a rapacious dictator after the martial law misrule in the People Power revolt of 1986. Then, ambitious military officers attempted a series of coups. The Estrada term was a period of turmoil and ineptitude culminating in the 2001 People Power 2 protests. Corruption scandals hounded the succeeding administration of Gloria Arroyo that continues to be unresolved. In recent years, a Supreme Court chief justice had been impeached and ousted as well. Clearly, the Philippine ship of state has sailed through turbulent seas.
Understandably, during the past decades Filipinos have become bitter, disillusioned, and cynical over politicians and their broken vows of leading the country into the promised land of peace and prosperity. Many Filipinos assert that the looming 2016 elections is another costly exercise in futility of cheap gimmicks and lofty promises ad nauseam.
As Filipinos surveyed the political landscape in late 2015, the mud-slinging and the political circus have shifted into higher gear in the run-up to the national elections. As allegations of corruption, management ineffectiveness, and citizenship issues diminished the political luster of the mainstream candidates, Davao Mayor Rodrigo Duterte has emerged as a leading contender for the highest office of the land and has captivated passionate supporters.
Duterte has apparently the most compelling promise: ending criminality by whatever means and thereby enhance achieving the long elusive peace and order for the country. It’s an indication of the extreme lack of faith on the rule of law, the perceived incapability of government institutions, and resulting desperation that his blatant advocacy for extra-judicial measures have garnered the approval of many as shown in his high ratings. He is a highly controversial and polarizing figure as his undisguised strong arm tactics as a crusader against crime has also generated howls of protests especially from human rights groups.
It is simplistic to assume that the ascent of Duterte is just a Philippine affair. His popularity is also a reflection of broader geopolitical trends. Understanding the countenance of the era and contextualizing enable a keener appreciation and a deeper insight into the Duterte phenomenon.
Swings of the pendulum
The philosopher Thomas Hobbes famously stated that life in “state of nature” or humanity without political community would be “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” Humanity enters into a “social contract” i.e. people would be willing to give up some rights for the sake of security and protection offered by the government. Thus, in Europe now on edge in the aftermath of the November 13 Paris attacks more security measures are in place that involves stricter immigration rules and the curtailment of freedom of movement.
The most fundamental concerns of humanity are the satisfaction of basic needs intertwined with the attainment of safety and security. Peace and order foster conditions for stable livelihoods and for civilization to take root and flourish. Priority security concerns change like a swinging pendulum in response to structural shifts, trends, and changing circumstances — protection against communists and imperialists in another age and against terrorists and drug lords in the current era. The leader is chosen who is deemed best to solve the specific security threat of the time. Aldous Huxley stated, “The charm of history and its enigmatic lesson consist in the fact that, from age to age, nothing changes and yet everything is completely different.”
Leaders are elected or chosen on how best they are perceived to promote the interests of their constituents and new institutional arrangements or modes of governance are created if necessary. The social contract is as old as civilization itself. So what is the record of these leaders who came into power ostensibly to safeguard peace and security?
An outstanding historical success is Augustus, who two millennia back ended the chaos and the civil wars of the Roman Republic and ushered in Imperial rule. While it marked the end of the Republic and the beginning of Absolutism under the emperors it was also the advent of the Golden Age of Rome or the “Pax Romana.”
Napoleon Bonaparte was initially popular because he defended France against European powers threatened by the spread of the ideas of the French Revolution. In extreme cases, in the 1920s to 1930s German discontent and humiliation over the loss in World War 1 and the resulting economic dislocations and insecurity led to the rise of Nazism. In the late 1930s Franco seized power after the bloody Spanish civil war. Mussolini’s rule started earlier in Italy of the 1920s. It was the glory years of Fascism that later would explode into the conflagration of World War 2.
Thus, after 1945, the world leaders were the key players during World War 2 and in the Cold War that followed: especially Churchill, De Gaulle, Mao, Stalin, and Eisenhower. During the Cold War the primary security threat from the perspective of the West was communism which was the justification for authoritarianism in the allied developing countries. These Asian authoritarian rulers included Marcos, Lee Kuan Yew, Mahathir, Suharto, and Park Chung Hee. Their fierce anti-communism also assured US support. The economies of Singapore, Malaysia, and South Korea soared under the able leadership of Lee, Mahathir, and Park respectively. On the other hand, the excesses of the Marcos and Suharto regimes consigned the Philippines and Indonesia to languish in underdevelopment. Eventually, Marcos and Suharto would land in Transparency International’s Top 10 most corrupt leaders of all time (the Philippines have the dubious distinction of being the only country with more than one leader in the list: #2 Marcos and #10 Estrada) (Transparency International).
This imperative desire to ensure personal safety, stability, and security resonates in popular culture narratives. For instance, anyone familiar with the Star Wars cultural phenomenon knows that Senator Palpatine manipulated the Senate so he would gain power as chancellor and later as emperor by emphatically declaring that he needed the powers to safeguard the peace and prosperity of the galaxy. He accused the Jedi of plotting against the Republic and issued Order 66 wherein the clone soldiers terminated their Jedi commanders. Art, in this case, imitates life.
