What happened to strongman leaders?
Three weeks ago, a Time magazine issue about "strongman leaders" generated a lot of interest in the Philippines because it included our current Philippine President Duterte, together with Putin, Xi, Erdogan, and Maduro. A "strongman" is defined as a political leader who rules by force and runs an authoritarian or totalitarian regime, Duterte denied that he is one, because he never sent anybody to jail. A broader definition of "strongman leaders" would include autocratic, with little respect for law and human rights, populist and controlling of free press and information; so strongman leaders may vary from the harshest leaders like Pol Pot of Cambodia, Duvalier of Haiti, or Hitler who had thousands killed during their incumbency, to the milder strongmen like Franklin Roosevelt or Deng Xiao Peng of China who had to rule with a firm hand to control an emergency condition.
In the last 230 years of history, Wikipedia lists 368 leaders who were considered strongman leaders. The starting point must have been the French Revolution, since prior to 1790, most of the nations and city states were ruled by absolute monarchies. Over these years there were 368 strongman leaders, with some countries like Afghanistan having 8, Bulgaria 11, Venezuela 6, Pakistan 5, Haiti 4, Thailand 10, Cuba 4, China 3, Argentina 3, the Philippines 3, Indonesia 2, and the rest of the 100 other countries 2 or 1. Listed for the Philippines are Aguinaldo, Marcos, and Duterte. Listed for Indonesia are Sukarno and Suharto. Noticeable in the list, are the presence of mostly underdeveloped and developing countries in Africa, Asia, South America, and the Middle East which suggest a strong correlation between economic development and authoritarianism and strongman rule. The consequent correlations have to do with political awareness and education, and experience in the liberal/democratic traditions in those countries.
Another conclusion we could derive from this listing is how prevalent were the strongman leaders over the years and into the modern era. Assuming that there were/are 350 strongman leaders who ruled for an average of 12 years, this would translate to 4,200 country years. But since there are 200 countries over the 200-year period, which translate to 40,000 country years, then the rule of strongman leaders accounts for only 11 percent of all the years in all these countries. Even if we extend the tenure of these leaders to 20 years, it would not be more than 20 percent of the time. This is consoling since I am sure, from year 1 or even Before Christ (BC), most of the regimes were by strongman leaders. Mankind and civilization have progressed and this is validated by the best-selling book "Why Nations Fail" on the importance of ethical leadership, of institutions, and equal opportunities in the development of nations.
Whatever happened to past "strongman leaders"? Scanning the 368 leaders in the list and researching on their history, these happened to them. Either they were deposed or replaced by another strong leader, or the people replaced them through normal election or succession or by peaceful or violent rebellions. In some cases, the extreme dictators committed suicide or were killed by unknown causes. In some, they just grow old, retired, and ceded their power to their successor like in the case of the Castros of Cuba. God is fair, everybody grows old and dies.
Part of the reason why strongman leaders emerge is because the people governed allow them, thinking they will solve all their problems. Yet, this is also the very same reason these leaders eventually fall as they are unable to solve all the problems. No one man can really solve all the problems of society as it needs the cooperation and help of all to minimize the problem and make them bearable.
- Latest
