“They are the most fatalistic people in the face of the earth, which is why they’re willing to live under lousy leaders.” — Vladimir Putin.
“We need heroes, people who can inspire us, help us shape morally, spur us on to purposeful action.” — Robert Coles, Lives of Moral Leadership (2000).
By Rey Moreno
There are seventeen presidents of the Philippines to date since Emilio Aguinaldo; none of them could be considered great political leaders. They wanted the office either for power, wealth, fame, or all three at the same time. Nobody had the strong desire and vision to make the living conditions of their people better. All had the same political goal: that of benefitting just their families and friends. The changing of the guard is simply the emergence of different economic elite, for money (and lots of it) is a must to secure elections. Once in power, the money lost must be recovered. That in a nutshell is how politics is run in the Philippines— the more it changes, the more it is the same thing.
The country, of course, has gone through a lot of crises. First on the block was the evil of colonialism (Spain and the United States). Aguinaldo’s victories in battles against the Spaniards propelled him upward as the true leader who would dismantle the cloak of Spanish oppression. But then he ordered the killing of his political rivals Andres Bonifacio and Antonio Luna. And he allowed himself to be easily manipulated by Commodore Dewey that led the United States in taking over the country from Spain.
Manuel Quezon was the president when Japan occupied the Philippines during World War II. But left the country for the safe haven of the United States and died at Saranac Lake, New York of tuberculosis in August 1944. Jose P. Laurel took over as president while Quezon was in exile until 1945 when Japan surrendered. But he was denounced as a war collaborator after the war, only to be saved by President Roxas’ Amnesty Proclamation.
Ramon Magsaysay was the seventh president in 1953 and his administration was considered as one of the cleanest and most corruption-free. He earned the nickname “Champion of the Masses” for his sympathetic approach to the Hukbalahap rebellion. But his rule was cut short when he died of an airplane crash on March 17, 1957.
And finally, Ferdinand Marcos became the tenth president in 1965. He personified the true corruption of power. His evil handiwork was to invoke Martial Law and extended his authoritarian regime for twenty years when he was ousted by the People Power in 1986.
Filipinos, therefore, have no knowledge of a great political leader. No one has the remarkable qualities to meet the moment of historical importance. In order for us to have a little bit understanding of what a great political leader must be, we resort to looking at the presidents of the United States, the country which the Philippines owed much for the establishment of its democratic institutions and values. We have to thank Doris Kearns Goodwin, a Pulitzer awardee, for writing Leadership in Turbulent Times (2018) which describes the political qualities of the four presidents who met the challenging moments of their time.
A great political leader is not measured by his electability; rather on the quality of his character. He must have intelligence, passion, courage, empathy, oral and written proficiency, and people skills. He must have intense ambition and drive to succeed. He must have patience and endurance for hard work. And he must believe strongly in the power of government to guide the country towards the path of moral progress. All these qualities were exhibited by these four great political leaders that propelled them to the presidency, although they differed in other ways such as upbringing, temperament and physical outlook. And when they were faced with consequential crises in the history of their fragile nation, they responded with strong leadership that perfectly matched the moment.
*************************
When Abraham Lincoln was sworn in as the 16th President of the United States on March 4, 1861, he faced a divided country on the brink of civil war. There were seven southern states (South Carolina, Florida, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas) seceding from the Union and forming a new nation called the Confederate States of America under the presidency of Jefferson Davis. They were slave-holding states and wanted to preserve the status quo at the cost of a war. To meet the harsh reality of a civil war, Lincoln assembled “the most unusual cabinet in American history, representing every faction of the new Republican Party—former Whigs, Free Soilers, and antislavery Democrats, a combination of conservatives, moderates, and radicals, of hard-liners and conciliators.” He needed the support of “the strongest and most able men in the country…whose loyalty to the Union was unquestionable.” When the war broke, Lincoln was ready. Goodwin attributed Lincoln’s hard-fought victory by: (1) acknowledging when failed policies demand a change in direction; (2) gathering firsthand information and asking questions; (3) finding time and space in which to think; (4) exhausting all possibility of compromise before imposing unilateral executive power; (5) anticipating contending viewpoints; (6) assuming full responsibility for a pivotal decision; (7) understanding the emotional needs of each member of the team; (8) refusing to let past resentments fester and transcending personal vendettas; (9) setting a standard of mutual respect and dignity and controlling anger; (10) shielding colleagues from blame; (11) maintaining perspective in the face of both accolades and abuse; (12) finding ways to cope with pressure, maintaining balance and replenishing energy; (13) keeping your word; (14) knowing when to hold back and when to move forward; (15) combining transactional and transformational leadership; (16) being accessible and easy to approach; and (17) putting ambition for the collective interest above self-interest.
*************************
Theodore Roosevelt’s assumption as the 26th President at age forty two was as a result of an assassination. President McKinley was felled by a bullet on September 6, 1901 in Buffalo, New York while attending the Pan-American Exposition. Filipinos didn’t think highly of President McKinley and were perhaps celebrating his death. His administration was responsible for the purchase of the Philippines from Spain in the amount of $20 million in 1898, thus extending the reach of US expansionism, popularly phrased as Manifest Destiny, in the Pacific. Anyway, Teddy, as he was fondly called, faced a crisis of uncertainty, confidence and panic. “It is a dreadful thing to come into the Presidency this way,” he wrote to a friend, “but it would be far worse thing to be morbid about it.” So his first business in office was to retain all members of the McKinley’s cabinet to reassure the country the he could be trusted to take over the wheels of government with a steady hand. But the United States was undergoing its Second Industrial Revolution and there was a growing animosity between the United Mine Workers, the largest union in the nation, and the powerful cartel of railroad presidents and mine owners in Pennsylvania. The Great Coal Strike of 1902 besieged Teddy’s administration and how he would handle the crisis was a great test to his leadership. Goodwin listed the actions Teddy did to manage the challenge: (1) calculated risks of getting involved; (2) secured a reliable understanding of the facts, causes, and conditions of the situation; (3) remained uncommitted in the early stages; (4)used history to provide perspective; (5) be ready to grapple with reversals, abrupt intrusions that could unravel all plans; (6) re-evaluated options and be ready to adapt as a situation escalated; (7) be visible and cultivated public support among those most directly affected by the crisis; (8) cleared the deck to focus with single-mindedness on the crisis; (9) assembled a crisis management team; (10) framed the narrative; (11) kept temper in check; (12) documented proceedings each step of the way; (13) controlled the message in the press; (14) found ways to relieve stress; (15) be ready with multiple strategies and be prepared for contingent moves; (16) didn’t hit unless you had to and when you hit, hit hard; (17) found ways to save face; (18) shared credit for the successful resolution; and (19) left a record behind for the future.
*************************
The United States was facing what was known as the Great Depression when Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) took office as the 32nd President on March 4, 1933. The economy had collapsed and people were out of work and starving. Riots were breaking out and relief funds were gone. “No cosmic dramatist could possibly devise a better entrance,” White House aide Robert Sherwood said, “for a new President—or a new Dictator, or a new Messiah—than that accorded to Franklin Roosevelt.” It was sure a heavy burden to assume power at that moment. Lesser men would absolutely fail. FDR succeeded because, according to Goodwin, he did the following: (1) drew an immediate sharp line of demarcation between what had gone before and what was about to begin; (2) restored confidence to the spirit and morale of the people and struck the right balance of realism and optimism; (3) infused a sense of shared purpose and direction; (4) told people what they could expect and was expected of them; (5) led by example; (6) forged a team aligned with action and change; (7) created a gathering pause and window of time; (8) brought all stakeholders aboard; (9) set a deadline and drove full-bore to meet it; (10) set forth and maintained a clear-cut ground rules with the press; (11) told the story simply and directly to the people; (12) addressed systemic problems and launched lasting reforms; (13) be open to experiment and designed flexible agencies to deal with new problems; (14) simulated competition and debate and encouraged creativity; (15) opened channels of unfiltered information to supplement and challenged official sources; and (16) adapted and was ready to change course quickly when necessary.
*************************
Like Teddy Roosevelt, Lyndon B. Johnson became the 36th President when the then-President John F. Kennedy was hit with an assassin’s bullet while travelling in an open car through downtown Dallas, Texas on November 22, 1963. The whole country was in shock and lamented the death of a very charismatic leader. “We were all spinning around and around, trying to come to grips with what happened, but the more we tried to understand it, the more confused we got,” Johnson said. “We were like a bunch of cattle caught in the swamp, unable to move in either direction,” he continued, “but there is one way to get the cattle out of the swamp. And that is for the man on the horse to take the lead, to assume command, to provide direction. In the period of confusion after the assassination, I was that man.” Big words for a man who was now in the forefront of confronting the challenges of the Civil Rights Movement and the Vietnam War. But Johnson was known as a great tactician of the legislative process and his legacy was the Great Society, a set of domestic programs whose main objective was the total elimination of poverty and racial injustice. According to Goodwin, Johnson succeeded because he: (1) made a dramatic start; (2) led with strengths; (3) simplified the agenda; (4) established the most effective order of battle; (5) honored commitments; (6) was driven; (7) mastered the power of narrative; (8) knew for what and when to risk it all; (8) rallied support around a strategic target; (9) drew a clear line of battle; (10) imposed discipline in the ranks; (11) identified the key to success and put ego aside; (12) took the measure of the man; (13) set forth a compelling picture of the future; (13) was ready to take over; (14) gave stakeholders a chance to shape measures from the start; (15) knew when to hold back and when to move forward; and (16) let celebrations honor the past and provided momentum for the future.
*************************
It is wishful thinking on my part that the Philippines can produce leaders of such high calibres as Goodwin excellently profiled. She described their leadership styles as follows: (1) Abraham Lincoln -Transformational Leadership; (2) Theodore Roosevelt – Crisis Management; (3) Franklin Roosevelt – Turnaround Leadership; and (4) Lyndon Johnson – Visionary Leadership. These four great leaders considered politics as their calling and a force for good. No such leaders exist in the Philippines who can match their talent and character. The country’s politicians are all for money and power. The only chance the country will come out any better is to elect candidates whose platforms can pass the smell test of corruption. As Jaime Raskin, the Congressman from Maryland’s 8th district, puts it: “We must insist that government be the instrument of the common good rather than a money-making operation for those who can capture high office.” *******
21 January 2025