“Filipinos are no strangers to strong, authoritarian presidency.”

Friends ribbed me about my last article.

Some judged it rushedly as descriptive of the present national leadership all because of its title and praised me for all the wrong reasons.

My use of the word “imperial” must have brought back tales of supreme Roman authority and its abuses. But it is simply a leadership that exercises more power than it traditionally possesses. Like stretching its police power.

It is often referred to as the Unitary Executive Theory.

I explained in a previous article the theoretical evolution of leadership style from a weak liberal Roosevelt type to a strong one on account of the imperatives of the political zeitgeist and severity of crises confronting developing countries.

If that style of leadership is accepted by a considerable number of people based on a survey as did the SWS on the governance of President Duterte then it reflects majocracy and merits respect.

Filipinos are no strangers to strong, authoritarian presidency. History tells us that the early Philippine leadership culture like the Sultanate institution in Morolandia was heavily dosed with Spain’s kingship. With its dominion of the country for more than three centuries, Spain had left indelible imprints and pervasive influence upon our political and cultural life.

The King as the lieutenant of God on earth and invoking the divine right theory was the head of government and state with his ubiquitous, centralist and unbounded authority imposed on its colonies, including the Philippines.

National leadership was clearly authoritarian with the King possessing la suma del poder. From this system emerged the concept of a caudillo or dictator in Latin America who was omnipotent.

We experienced shades of an autocratic leadership during the Filipinos’ battle for independence when General Emilio Aguinaldo, then head of the Revolutionary government wielded dictatorial powers to address the crises confronting the revolucionarios. And we had the martial rule experience from then President Ferdinand Marcos.

Some Latin American and Asian countries facing national crises opted for strong leaderships as well.

As observed by T. Taketsugu, an oriental scholar: “Almost every nation, in the wake of independence following World War II, initially adopted a representative constitutional system patterned after one or another western example. And almost every new nation has since discarded them, in practice if not in theory, in favor of some kind of authoritarian rule.”

“We now look upon the President as a one-man riot squad.”

When you talked of a strong Presidency, what comes to mind is France President Charles de Gaulle. According to scholar Ouston in his book Philippine, France in the Twentieth Century, President de Gaulle was granted enormous power by the 1958 Constitution to promulgate laws because of the crises the country was facing (the Algerian crises, the planned military takeover on the night of May 27-28) and because the Parliament was considered to be an “assembly of disruptive men.”

It is in this light that we must view the tendency of President Duterte to manifest impatience to unnecessary constraints in his presidential prerogatives from other political and legal institutions including moral and religious norms. When you are fighting the three-headed hydra of drugs, crimes and corruption, a leader must employ alpha-male leadership to ovecome annoying hurdles.

Given these theories about the need for a strongman to cope with the everyday challenges to government, a Revolutionary Government or expanded martial rule is floated about. The bugaboo gadflies of the administration want to create pales vis-a-vis design for state order.

The social malaise which defies easy solution calls for what theorists classified as a Policeman President.

A leading authority on American Presidency, Rositer, in a book of the same title, observed that: “The role of the President that has undergone perhaps the most rapid growth in the past quarter-century is that of Protector of Peace.

We now look upon the President as a one-man riot squad ready to rush anywhere the country to restore peace and order.

This is perhaps the perception of the Pilipino masa when they voted for and entrusted their fate on Duterte, a trust lasting to this day. They are possibly more inclined to cast their fate on discipline or order premised on a promised emancipation from the hostels of poverty by a charismatic leader than on liberty and weak laws.