On Authoritarian Populism
Trump won again for a second term, and it's mind-boggling to me how someone who constantly lies and says the most ridiculous things gets voted to the highest position in the world. It reminds me of how BBM won the Philippine election without even going to a single debate (well, aside from "friendly" SMNI) or presenting a solid platform aside from "unity." Well, so much for unity nowadays with his breakup with the Dutertes.
BBM won because of his seeming support for the Dutertes (at the time of the election). As quoted in one study:
Dulay, et. al. (2023) We find that a) support for Duterte, (b) positive perceptions of the late President Ferdinand Marcos and Martial Law, and Ā© ethnic (linguistic) identity are among strong predictors of voting for Bongbong Marcos. On the other hand, age, education, and income are not. Consequently, theories based on continuity, coalition, history, and identity provide the most leverage on the question of why Bongbong Marcos won the election.
Why is Duterte such a popular figure in Philippine politics?
An Al-Jazeera article puts it:
The upshot of populism is often the progressive emaciation of liberal institutions, which aim to curb the powers of political leaders based on the rule of law, and the principles of pluralism, which presume no single group or individual has monopoly on truth and public interest.
Of crucial importance isnāt so much Duterteās rhetoric, but the fact thatĀ a growing number of Filipinos are subscribing to what I call the āstrongman syndromeā: the simplistic belief thatĀ a decisive leader with strong political will can single-handedly address complex 21st-century problems, which beset rapidly-developing nations like the Philippines.
According to theĀ latestĀ Pew Survey, 50 percent of Filipinos support autocratic rule in their country. In fellow, emerging market democracies such as Indonesia (52 percent) and India (55 percent), the majority support a āstrong leaderā who has little respect for democratic checks and balances.
Another,Ā recentĀ study, published earlier this year in the Journal of Democracy,Ā shows that the majority of citizens in the Philippines, as in India and Turkey, prefer a āstrong leaderā who doesnāt have to bother with elections at all...
I think this puts to emphasis the importance of institutions in a democracy as counterweight against authoritarian rule. Institutions can be both public (like the courts) and private (like civic groups), with effects on democratic principles (such as rule of law) and checks threats to democracy (like fascists). It's simple, but difficult to achieve: A stronger institution means a stronger democracy.
Noted in one infographic:
In the overall sense, institutions embody the spirit of democracy as they move the focus and power center from an individual to entities which are open and collective in nature... countries with weak institution have less capacity to provide socio-economic support.
How do we strengthen institutions?
First, I believe institutions should be participatory. Demonstrable democracy should not rear its head only during elections and/or tragedies, but also during rule-building, enactment and implementation. Government should not be in the background of everyday life, not contained in evening news, but also in social media, advertisements, and entertainment. It should be noted that this does not repeal the need for an anti-epal law, but rather supports it, as institutions should be able to be publicly known without being identified as belonging to one person or party.
Subsequently, institutions should be science-based. Science should be the cornerstone of life, since science basically is just repeated results of the same variables in a crucible. Really, insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result every time. If there is a scientific way how to solve corruption, or how to solve poverty, or even basic questions as what to tax and what not to tax, policy makers should study these articles. Science, however, should not be blindly trusted, as scientific results are still made and interpreted by fallible human beings, but it should have heavy evidentiary weight.
Next, institutions should have strong values that persist beyond human control. Employees come and go, but tradition and values remain. Institutions should not revolve around or be lead by a single individual, but rather a group or committee that has institutional memory (meaning staggered rule). Take, for example, the Supreme Court, which is led by fifteen people, with the Chief Justice only primus inter pares, or first among equals.
Importantly, institutions should be independent. The threat of the House of Representatives leaving a single peso to the Office of the Vice President (if you are a fan of the Dutertes) or the Commission on Human Rights (if you are not a fan of the Dutertes) should not be possible. We should review the independent status of our commissions and committees to act. The media should not be shut down, senators should not be jailed on bogus charges and Justices should not be afraid to be impeached or even kicked out without the benefit of impeachment because they decided against the ruling regime.
Although independent, institutions should also work together. Results of one agency should be provided to the other relevant agencies through an information highway. Redundancy of duties should be prevented and there should be righsizing of responsibilities within and between the different institutions. Private civic groups can provide the needed redundancy, but not in the public sector which is a waste of taxpayer's money.
Next, institutions should be transparent and utilize technology to its fullest. I've been to websites of government agencies as well as civic groups and it's a pain in the ass to search for transparency reports, like utilization of funds and project results. Transparency builds trust and is corollary to participatory governance.
Finally, institutions should review their system periodically. A strong institution is not stagnant but is dynamic, always changing to the demand of the times. Therefore, third party audits should be common, and standards like ISO certifications should be sought and obtained. Where the change is sought in the Constitution, it should be studied properly and reviewed not by congressmen themselves but through a constitutional committee composed of leaders from public institutions and private civic groups.
We ought to remember that institutions are the foundation of a strong democracy, and that though we cannot prevent autocratic populist leaders from rising to the top, there are still sufficient checks and balances to reel them in. I think America is not doomed because of Trump because I believe they still have properly working institutions that the orange man cannot simply bend to his whims (until they execute Project 2025, that is). We should not make it easy for one person to change democracy and the path of the country to his will, for better or for worse. The path to good governance and necessarily a better life should be a whole-of-country approach and not be left to the powers of a few.