"Benevolent" Dictatorship: a daydream for the Fanatic
(or how Duterte's fans positively sees their idol as a dictator who "cares")
It's been a daydream for a fanatic to see orderism under a benevolent dictatorship. Expecting terms to describe such as "constitutional authoritarianism", or simplest ones like "compassionate paternalism", Duterte's supporters have claimed that the present government will be "benevolent" amidst the fact that his regime been soiled with blood.
For with all the programs been featured in social media pages, followed by statements babbled by its apologists, the desire to have a benevolent strongman to take place that includes sacrificing civil rights for piecemeal 'reforms' to so called 'sobriety' and 'order'- that in turn leads to development.
For as older citizens, with all their nostalgia overhearing in social media pages, are long for a leadership that is as at once decisive and compassionate—features that they think are sorely lacking past administrations. And the keen interest in a Duterte presidency is, of course, emblematic of that kind of wishfulness.
Yet there is more than what Duterte's apologists to describe the features of that idealised paternal rule just like his predecessor- for according to an article from the Philippine Daily Inquirer made last 2016, Vicente Rafael describes about some people wished for a strongman-like figure to impose both fear and mercy, of order and stability to its subject-constituents, leaving a generation either thinking of it as orderly as the quiet roads at night or chaotic as the nighttime arrests, so, what are some of the features of this discourse of benevolent dictatorship?
First, there is the notion of the sovereign as savior who comes to redeem the country and qapunish the evildoers. He—for the dictator is invariably a patriarchal figure—will then return the nation to a state of grace. He will restore laws and, just as important, suspend them when he thinks it necessary. His sovereignty is thus premised upon his ability to take exception to the law—especially in a coup d’etat—in the name of restoring order and preserving his rule.
Second, the actions of a benevolent dictator are seen to be unfailingly just, combining brutality and compassion. He does not hesitate to use whatever means are necessary to pursue justice, including the most unjust measures, so long as these are aimed at criminals, who, to begin with, are already considered to be enemies from within, and thus bereft of any rights.
Third, the benevolent dictator is invested with magical powers. He rules as if he knows everything about everybody, deciding without delay or hesitation. Results are instantaneous, progress is always already at hand. Furthermore, his magical powers are seen to be contagious, infusing officials and citizens alike with virtue, bringing them to dwell in a moral community.
Finally, such dreams always turn into nightmares. The fantasy of benevolent dictatorship is exactly that—a fantasy. Those who indulge in this dream often think that the solution to the nation’s problems can only come from a heroic figure willing to risk everything for them. In exchange, he asks only for their unquestioning obedience.
Revisiting Agpalo's "Pangulo"
(and how Duterte acts as an example)
Other than Rafael's statement, are more descriptions stated above to chat down in this post, but to sum it all, the idea of a benevolent despot isn't new- for the Filipino term "Pangulo" itself isn't just presiding but more of overseeing and leading the community.
Literally meant "Headman", and acting as "vicar" or "steward" on behalf of "God" (the word "Pamahalaan" derives from the word "Bathala"), the "Pangulo" as people idealised has to be a paramount figure, an enlightened despot whose word is law if not personifying both fear and justice. It's advocator, the late UP Professor Remigio Escalona Agpalo once described the “Pangulo” regime as the “remedial version of both the American presidential and the British parliamentary forms of government.” And that concept also favored a strong but caring president, likening the chief executive to a stern and strict but loving father to a family. From this the late professor said this was the type of leader that could be most effective here, considering Philippine culture.
And judging by what Duterte is been doing, it appears that he has trying to apply some aspects what that “developmental dictatorship” which has been widespread in Asia decades ago in a form of a "Pangulo". Positioning himself as a strong executive who is ready to do what needs to be done, and be held accountable for his actions, that model he favours about implies a combination of a strong authoritarian, repressive state which does not tolerate political opposition, with a market-oriented economic policy that benefits those of a particular sector.
With programs like "Build Build Build", "Biyaya ng Pagbabago", and his anti-corruption campaigns seemed trying to appease the people even after witnessing his bloodied campaign if not his vent against the opposition. He also claims to be unburdened by corruption allegations nor affected much by his statements, and instead points to his “success” in instilling discipline and paving the way for peace and order basing from his experience as the Mayor of Davao City- enough for a blueprint in a nationwide scale which is approved by those who supported him.
Why this enduring fantasy that associates authoritarianism with benevolence? Is it because of the feudal views people accustomed to? Of 'father figure'-style patronage politics? For sure many would believe that his statements was just one of his Freudian slips (slip of the tongue) considering that the president has a “gift of tongue”.- and from it one would find out what is the explanation of his propaganda team be it from Harry Roque to those of Mocha Uson.
And for sure both of these apologists may agree, disagree, come up with a “potable explanation” or may confirm that their boss was just exercising his “sense of humor”, none withstanding his incorrectness.
 |
| Contradicting himself |
But on the other hand, Duterte himself, who insist "he will step down after his tenure ends" or "urging the military to oust him if he to become a dictator" admitted that his dictator-style governance will make things happen in the country, that again, apologists would expand or downplay that statement of his as any other sentiment enough to appease those who disagreed in that tendency.
And perhaps some if not most would even think that the President might use federalism Filipino-style, or the earlier idea of having a "revolutionary government" (when in fact it isn't) to support his intention of becoming an authoritarian figure the way everyone remembers how the late Ferdinand Marcos claiming that Democracy was in full swing, complete with elections, "reforms", anything enough to appear that the Philippines as "normal" as any other democratic states; and at the same time describing his martial rule as necessary "to save the republic" and to create a "new society" under his "Constitutional Authoritarianism".
First, there is the notion of the sovereign as savior who comes to redeem the country and qapunish the evildoers. He—for the dictator is invariably a patriarchal figure—will then return the nation to a state of grace. He will restore laws and, just as important, suspend them when he thinks it necessary. His sovereignty is thus premised upon his ability to take exception to the law—especially in a coup d’etat—in the name of restoring order and preserving his rule.
Second, the actions of a benevolent dictator are seen to be unfailingly just, combining brutality and compassion. He does not hesitate to use whatever means are necessary to pursue justice, including the most unjust measures, so long as these are aimed at criminals, who, to begin with, are already considered to be enemies from within, and thus bereft of any rights.
Third, the benevolent dictator is invested with magical powers. He rules as if he knows everything about everybody, deciding without delay or hesitation. Results are instantaneous, progress is always already at hand. Furthermore, his magical powers are seen to be contagious, infusing officials and citizens alike with virtue, bringing them to dwell in a moral community.
Finally, such dreams always turn into nightmares. The fantasy of benevolent dictatorship is exactly that—a fantasy. Those who indulge in this dream often think that the solution to the nation’s problems can only come from a heroic figure willing to risk everything for them. In exchange, he asks only for their unquestioning obedience.
 |
| Following the Pangulo principle |
(and how Duterte acts as an example)
Other than Rafael's statement, are more descriptions stated above to chat down in this post, but to sum it all, the idea of a benevolent despot isn't new- for the Filipino term "Pangulo" itself isn't just presiding but more of overseeing and leading the community.
Literally meant "Headman", and acting as "vicar" or "steward" on behalf of "God" (the word "Pamahalaan" derives from the word "Bathala"), the "Pangulo" as people idealised has to be a paramount figure, an enlightened despot whose word is law if not personifying both fear and justice. It's advocator, the late UP Professor Remigio Escalona Agpalo once described the “Pangulo” regime as the “remedial version of both the American presidential and the British parliamentary forms of government.” And that concept also favored a strong but caring president, likening the chief executive to a stern and strict but loving father to a family. From this the late professor said this was the type of leader that could be most effective here, considering Philippine culture.
And judging by what Duterte is been doing, it appears that he has trying to apply some aspects what that “developmental dictatorship” which has been widespread in Asia decades ago in a form of a "Pangulo". Positioning himself as a strong executive who is ready to do what needs to be done, and be held accountable for his actions, that model he favours about implies a combination of a strong authoritarian, repressive state which does not tolerate political opposition, with a market-oriented economic policy that benefits those of a particular sector.
With programs like "Build Build Build", "Biyaya ng Pagbabago", and his anti-corruption campaigns seemed trying to appease the people even after witnessing his bloodied campaign if not his vent against the opposition. He also claims to be unburdened by corruption allegations nor affected much by his statements, and instead points to his “success” in instilling discipline and paving the way for peace and order basing from his experience as the Mayor of Davao City- enough for a blueprint in a nationwide scale which is approved by those who supported him.
 |
| Past leaders as benevolent despots (And how people chose to believe towards them) |
(and how people chose to believe towards them)
Outside the Philippines that "benevolent" move was also pioneered by its neighbouring Asian countries especially during the post-war period.
Those countries, whose societies are rather traditionally hierarchical in nature, looked at the example of leaders, that in turn inspired from the benevolent despots who were ready to do what needs to be done, and be held accountable for their actions- which mostly "did benefit" even at the expense of civil rights, if not trying to conserve some of the liberties and mechanisms of democracy.
Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew, who ruled thirty-one years from 1959 until 1990, is often called a 'benevolent dictator', who implemented some laws that were deemed to be autocratic, and attempted to dismantle political opposition- while at the same time creating "sound" economic and social policies that made the country one of the developed. South Koreans did experience "development" during the era of Park Chung-Hee, which involves the engaging of trading companies in manufacturing (such as in the case of Samsung and Hyundai), leading to Korea's industrialisation boom during the mid-to-late 20th century. And so was Taiwan under Chiang Kai-Shek whose intent was to create "another China" which was "non-Communistic", "orderly", and the "good China" different from the other which described as "chaotic" and "tyrannical".
On the other hand, there were also corrupt amongst these despots. Thailand's Sarit Thanarat for example, he did afford to create immense development, for aside urging the late King Bhumibol to take part in development projects, Thanarat's "revolutionary council" ordered the lowering of electric rates and food prices, getting rid of drugs and prostitution, and even provided better health care programs. However, his regime has it's repressive aspect: parliament was abolished, newspapers were strictly censured, political parties were prohibited, and people who were suspected of colluding with communists were imprisoned. He was even deemed corrupt- for after his death scandals such as a massive extent of his wealth, which totaled over US$100 million, was revealed after an inheritance battle amongst family members.
But in fairness for Thanarat, he bluntly disagreed with Democratic processes, preferring Authoritarianism under a benevolent dictatorship since it was compatible with the Thai tradition and culture. For as according to Wikipedia, Likhit Dhiravegin stresses that the notion of "phokho" (patriarchal rule) from the Sukhothai Kingdom and "devaraja" (god–king) and "sakdina" (dignity marks) from the Ayutthaya Kingdom are important in understanding modern Thai politics. Likhit's analysis, as well as those of Thak Chaloemtiarana, shows how Thanarat combines paternalistic rule using the examples of Sukothai and Ayutthaya to create his personal political style, which can also be understood as the modern phokhun style of leadership, wherein the benevolent leader would intervene to help his people whenever deemed necessary.
But regardless of the nature of those despots, that policy also appears to be "favorable" to American interests, redescribing it as a necessary if not a pragmatic move, a lesser evil enough in underdeveloped and developing countries to counter against communism with an emphasis on economic growth and some cases, a series of welfare programs enough to appease the people- an iron fist well hidden in a snow white glove. To quote Ko Song-guk in describing Park Chung Hee's regime:
"It is no exaggeration to say that developmental dictatorship is a core concept integrating the Korean experience of modernization in the era of extremes, as well as a key notion characterizing the Jung-Hee Park regime. The conventional definition of developmental dictatorship is that it is “a system used to justify a dictatorship that restricts the people’s participation in politics based on the reason that political security is a prerequisite to economic growth”.
Those countries, whose societies are rather traditionally hierarchical in nature, looked at the example of leaders, that in turn inspired from the benevolent despots who were ready to do what needs to be done, and be held accountable for their actions- which mostly "did benefit" even at the expense of civil rights, if not trying to conserve some of the liberties and mechanisms of democracy.
Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew, who ruled thirty-one years from 1959 until 1990, is often called a 'benevolent dictator', who implemented some laws that were deemed to be autocratic, and attempted to dismantle political opposition- while at the same time creating "sound" economic and social policies that made the country one of the developed. South Koreans did experience "development" during the era of Park Chung-Hee, which involves the engaging of trading companies in manufacturing (such as in the case of Samsung and Hyundai), leading to Korea's industrialisation boom during the mid-to-late 20th century. And so was Taiwan under Chiang Kai-Shek whose intent was to create "another China" which was "non-Communistic", "orderly", and the "good China" different from the other which described as "chaotic" and "tyrannical".
On the other hand, there were also corrupt amongst these despots. Thailand's Sarit Thanarat for example, he did afford to create immense development, for aside urging the late King Bhumibol to take part in development projects, Thanarat's "revolutionary council" ordered the lowering of electric rates and food prices, getting rid of drugs and prostitution, and even provided better health care programs. However, his regime has it's repressive aspect: parliament was abolished, newspapers were strictly censured, political parties were prohibited, and people who were suspected of colluding with communists were imprisoned. He was even deemed corrupt- for after his death scandals such as a massive extent of his wealth, which totaled over US$100 million, was revealed after an inheritance battle amongst family members.
But in fairness for Thanarat, he bluntly disagreed with Democratic processes, preferring Authoritarianism under a benevolent dictatorship since it was compatible with the Thai tradition and culture. For as according to Wikipedia, Likhit Dhiravegin stresses that the notion of "phokho" (patriarchal rule) from the Sukhothai Kingdom and "devaraja" (god–king) and "sakdina" (dignity marks) from the Ayutthaya Kingdom are important in understanding modern Thai politics. Likhit's analysis, as well as those of Thak Chaloemtiarana, shows how Thanarat combines paternalistic rule using the examples of Sukothai and Ayutthaya to create his personal political style, which can also be understood as the modern phokhun style of leadership, wherein the benevolent leader would intervene to help his people whenever deemed necessary.
But regardless of the nature of those despots, that policy also appears to be "favorable" to American interests, redescribing it as a necessary if not a pragmatic move, a lesser evil enough in underdeveloped and developing countries to counter against communism with an emphasis on economic growth and some cases, a series of welfare programs enough to appease the people- an iron fist well hidden in a snow white glove. To quote Ko Song-guk in describing Park Chung Hee's regime:
"It is no exaggeration to say that developmental dictatorship is a core concept integrating the Korean experience of modernization in the era of extremes, as well as a key notion characterizing the Jung-Hee Park regime. The conventional definition of developmental dictatorship is that it is “a system used to justify a dictatorship that restricts the people’s participation in politics based on the reason that political security is a prerequisite to economic growth”.
Again, Duterte's fanatics would still afforded to babble his regime as "making immense changes" when again in fact it was but a consolidation of interests. From this it costs support from his allies for the change he offered to them turned out to be a continuity of unjust policies. TRAIN may sound good to fund most projects, but by retaining the Extended Value Added Tax on various products, a deregulated oil pricing that keeps prices increase, and even wanting to remove suggested retail prices on commodities, what more of keeping wages low to satisfy profits for compradores and its foreign counterparts, will people remain "hopeful" that the regime seriously address their problems?
Perhaps in this so-called "continuing past" there will be those who disagree. True that the regime tries to be developmentalist, but given the leader's character and history, as well as sworn an oath to defend the status quo, will his populism thrive well and strong? Will his allies support him and his endeavors despite controversies? For sure everyone benefited from the late Marcos's programs as well as those of his successors, and this time seeing some "optimism" in Duterte regardless of all the bullshits, but this doesn't mean cannot deny that those regimes has its bad eggs ranging from corrupt officials to bloodied and soiled hands just to maintain order and steer their conception of development.
From this no wonder why there are protests in the streets, effigies burning, if not a concerned innocently asking:
"In which direction is the Philippine society going?"
That's all for now.