THE PERSPECTIVE OF UPM CAS STUDENTS

ON STRONGMAN LEADERSHIP

Shanin Kyle C. Manuel

Student no.: 2018 – 06396

INTRODUCTION

One of the most significant contributions of the 21 st century politics is the rise of strongman
leadership. There has been an increasing public demand for a leader that is tougher, more
assertive, and patriotic (Bremmer, 2018). The emergence of strongman politics has led to a
proliferation of comparative studies about the authoritarian regimes of Vladimir Putin in Russia,
Xi Jinping in China, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in Turkey, Viktor Orbán in Hungary, and Rodrigo
Duterte in the Philippines (Clavé et al., 2018). These leaders have been categorized as
tough-talking populists who subscribe to beliefs of machismo, where a State shall be
dominated by leaders with strong sense of masculine pride (Bremmer, 2018; Elsa Clavé et
al., 2018). They are likely to pursue impulsive decisions that suppress civil liberties, judicial
independence, and basic rights of people to free expression and dissent (Taussig, 2017).

In the new global politics, this has become a central issue for countries that struggle for
democratic processes including proper representation in the government, consensus-
building of citizens, and the issuance of fair and equitable laws. The Philippines, under the
regime of Rodrigo Duterte embodied mass manipulation and human rights violations
through his war on drugs and culture of impunity (Bremmer, 2018; Elsa Clavé et al., 2018;
Hamilton, 2017). His verbal tirades against political leaders, clergymen, and women,
disgrace the country and destroy its diplomatic relationships among others. Duterte is
reportedly a follower of Vladimir Putin’s strongman leadership, branded with the label:
“Putin of Asia.” Both of these populist leaders value extreme nationalism and brand justice
through their extrajudicial killings.

Although some research has been carried out on strongman leadership in various regimes,
none of these studies attempted to know the perspective of 21st century people about this
new brand of politics. There is little understanding of the impact of strongman politics, not

1|SURVEY REPORT
 just in the Philippines, but in a global context. It is the purpose of this paper to provide an
overview of how people understand and evaluate strongman leader in general. Therefore,
the central question asks whether or not they prefer a strongman rule.

METHODOLOGY

The study used a convenience sample of 30 students from University of the Philippines Manila
College of Arts and Sciences (UPM CAS). A small sample was chosen due to the expected
difficulty of obtaining respondents in a very limited time. Quantitative method through a survey-
questionnaire was administered for this procedure is more efficient, less time consuming, and
the data would be more controlled. Prior to conducting surveys, respondents were told a brief
overview of strongman leadership. To assure that the questionnaires are returned, we waited
until the respondents are finished.

We designed a 5-point Likert scale in a survey-questionnaire to assess UPM CAS students’

degree of agreement to qualities and manifestations of a strongman leader. They are required
to respond to ten statements, which are either descriptions or exemplifications of strongman
leadership. Rates of 5 for strongly agree, 4 for agree, 3 for neutral, 2 for disagree, and 1 for
strongly disagree, are assigned to allow ranking of data. Unlike other formats, it is easier to
know whether UPM CAS students favor or not a strongman leader, and more convenient in
reporting results through graphs and tables. However, there are certain drawbacks associated
with the use of Likert scale. The intervals between points cannot completely determine the
opinion of those surveyed about strongman leadership. Given scales further restrict them from
expressing their reservations or proper feedback to the statements provided in the
questionnaire.

2|SURVEY REPORT
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter demonstrates data and generalizations about the opinion of UPM CAS students
on a strongman leader. Specific qualities are attributed to a strongman leader such as a tough-
talking, man-to-man, nationalist, anti-corrupt, and utilitarian. Data further include manifestations
of strongman leadership in the basis of law reinforcement including civil disobedience, capital
punishment, necessary violence, and punishment-orientation. Summarized data gathered are
presented through bar graphs and tables, which are as follows:

I. Four necessary qualities of a strongman leader

50%
45% 43%

40%
35% 33%

30%
25%
20% 17%
15%
10% 7%
5%
0%
0%
Tough-talking

Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree

Figure 1.0
Opinion of UPM CAS students
on a leader with tough-talking attitude

Figure 1 illustrates whether UPM CAS students have positive or negative opinion on a tough-
talking leader. The percentage of those who approved is greater than those who disapproved
a leader who speaks more resolutely than politely. However, still most of them neither approved
nor disapproved the quality. This only shows that UPM CAS students are not particularly
concerned about the language of a leader, whether be it courteous or not.

3|SURVEY REPORT
 80%
70%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30% 23%
20%
7%
10%
0% 0%
0%
Nationalist

Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree

Figure 2.0
Opinion of UPM CAS students on a nationalist leader

Figure 2 presents the level of agreement and disagreement of UPM CAS students about a
nationalist leader. The majority of those who responded preferred a leader whose loyalty rests
on his or her own nation. Surprisingly none of them disapproved a nationalist leader. This data
reveals that UPM CAS students agreed that nationalism should be manifested in a leader.

40% 37%
35%
30%
30%
25%
20% 17%
15%
10%
10% 6%
5%
0%
Man-to-man

Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree

Figure 3.0
Opinion of UPM CAS students on a leader
who approaches a situation man-to-man

Figure 3 shows whether UPM CAS students agree or disagree that a leader should apply the
principle of retaliation: an eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth. Most of them opposed a leader
who solves things man-to-man. The result indicates that UPM CAS students have negative
opinion on a leader who compensates violations by the same offense taken by the perpetrator.

4|SURVEY REPORT
 80%
70%
70%
60%
50%
40%
27%
30%
20%
10% 3% 0% 0%
0%
Anti-corrupt

Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree

Figure 4.0
Opinion of UPM CAS students on a leader
who prioritizes an anti-corruption drive

Figure 4 illustrates whether an anti-corruption drive as the top priority of a leader has bearing
for UPM CAS students. Over half of those surveyed agreed that a leader should prioritize his
or her own anti-corruption campaign. Hardly any opposed arresting or prosecuting corrupt civil
servants. This data confirms that UPM CAS students favor a leader who prioritizes fighting
against corruption.

Table 1.0
Qualities of a strongman leader
that UPM CAS students preferred

Qualities of a strongman Agree Neutral Disagree Total

leader
1 Tough-talking leader 40% 43% 17% 100%
2 Nationalist leader 93% 7% 0% 100%
3 Man-to-man leader 23% 30% 47% 100%
4 Anti-corrupt leader 97% 3% 0% 100%

Table 1 presents the overall response of UPM CAS students to the four qualities of a
strongman leader: tough-talking, nationalist, man-to-man, and anti-corrupt. In this tabulation,
responses of those who strongly agreed and agreed, and strongly disagreed and disagreed
are combined. Majority of UPM CAS students preferred a leader who both campaigns for
anti-corruption and nationalism. Nearly half of them had neutral opinion to the tough-talking
attitude and negative opinion to a leader who approaches a situation man-to-man. Above all
the qualities of a strongman leader presented, everything was approved by UPM CAS
students except the man-to-man quality. This leads us to believe that only in the absence of
principle of retaliation that UPM CAS students will generally favor a strongman leader.

5|SURVEY REPORT
 II. Utilitarian perspectives of a strongman leader

45.00% 40% 40%

40.00%
35.00% 30%
30.00% 27.00%
25.00% 23.00%
20.00%
15.00% 13.00% 13.00%
10.00% 7.00%
5.00% 3.00% 3.00%
0.00%
Individual Liberty Rights of Minority

Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

Figure 5.0
Opinion of UPM CAS students on utilitarianism
based on individual liberty vs. minority rights

Figure 5 compares the perspective of UPM CAS students on utilitarianism based on individual
liberty perspective to minority rights perspective. Although it shows that most of them agreed
to the possibility of compromising their liberty for the greater good, combined percentage of
those who disagreed and strongly disagreed are higher. Majority also opposed sacrificing the
rights of minority for the sake of many. Similar trends between both items indicate that UPM
CAS students have negative opinion on utilitarianism, either it be based on the rights of
individual or minority.

III. Reinforcement of laws in a strongman leadership

35.00%
30%
30.00% 27.00%
25.00%
20.00%
20.00%
15.00% 13.00%
10.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
Civil disobedience

Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

Figure 5.0
Opinion of UPM CAS students on civil disobedience

6|SURVEY REPORT
 Figure 5 presents the degree to which UPM CAS students are willing to defy laws that promote
injustices. More than a half percent indicated their reluctance to following laws which are biased
against the rights of people. This data leads us to believe that UPM CAS students tolerate civil
disobedience if the law is unjust in itself.

50.00% 47.00%

40.00%

30.00%
20.00%
20.00%
13%
10.00% 10.00%
10.00%

0.00%
Capital punishment

Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

Figure 6.0
Opinion of UPM CAS students on capital punishment

Figure 6 shows whether UPM CAS students consent capital punishment for heinous crimes
such as rape and murder. Death penalty is one of the indications of a strongman leadership.
Of the study population, few (23%) of them approved death penalty for severe crimes.
However, still a majority believed that capital punishment is never justified for any crimes. This
proves that UPM CAS students disallowed a state-sanctioned killing of offender regardless of
the offense.

40.00% 36.00%
35.00%
30.00%
25.00%
20% 20.00%
20.00% 17.00%
15.00%
10.00% 7.00%
5.00%
0.00%
Necessary violence

Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

Figure 7.0
Opinion of UPM CAS students
on returning violence with necessary violence

7|SURVEY REPORT
 Figure 7 illustrates the view of UPM CAS students about the permissibility of violence to
conflict-ridden situations such as war. More than a half percent agreed that violence is not
needed to obtain justice. Data from this graph is aligned with the data in Figure 3 which presents
the negative opinion of UPM CAS students to the principle of retaliation. These findings imply
that UPM CAS students rejects strongman leadership on the ground of retaliation or confronting
a crime with necessary offense.

40.00% 36.00%
35.00%
30.00% 27.00%
25.00% 23.00%
20%
20.00%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00% 3.00%

0.00%
Negative reinforcement

Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

Figure 8.0
Opinion of UPM CAS students
on the negative reinforcement of laws

Figure 8 shows the perspective of UPM CAS students on the reinforcement of laws through
their negative consequences including punishment. This is a question of whether the
respondents prefer punishment over rehabilitation. It is apparent from this graph that majority
opposed punishment in lieu of a reward system. Only a few believed that negative
reinforcement is more effective. From this data, it is clear that UPM CAS students agreed
that laws are better reinforced with a practice of merit than a punishment system.

Table 2.0
Reinforcement of laws
in a strongman leadership
Manifestations of strongman Agree Neutral Disagree Total
leadership
1 Civil disobedience 57% 20% 23% 100%
2 Capital punishment 23%% 10% 67% 100%
3 Necessary violence 27% 17% 56% 100%
4 Negative reinforcement 23% 27% 50% 100%

Table 2 presents four common manifestations of strongman leadership. As can be seen from
the table, overwhelmingly majority of UPM CAS students opposed sanctioning capital

8|SURVEY REPORT
 punishment and necessary violence to compensate for any crimes. Half of those surveyed
were also hostile to negative reinforcement in place of rehabilitating offenders. Out of the
given manifestations, UPM CAS students only approved strongman leadership in the basis
of civil disobedience. Data from this table can be compared with the data in Table 1 which
reveals the positive opinion of UPM CAS students to the qualities of a strongman leader.
Unlike the first tabulation, Table 2 implies that UPM CAS students are critical of how a
strongman leader approaches the reinforcement of laws, specifically in terms of capital
punishment, necessary violence, and negative reinforcement. Hence, they are likely to reject
strongman leadership due to these manifestations.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION

In this survey report, the aim was to assess the degree to which UPM CAS students agree
and disagree to strongman leadership. Specific measures were held to determine the opinion
of those surveyed, where one focused on the characteristics of a strongman leader while the
other entailed how laws are reinforced by the leadership. The most obvious finding to emerge
from the prior is the positive opinion of UPM CAS students to specific qualities of a strongman
leader. Accordingly, these leaders must embody a strong sense of nationalism and campaign
for anti-corruption. They are not critical of the language used by a strongman leader, as long
as both qualities are manifested. However, they have reservations in particular to the
principle of retaliation: an eye for an eye. They opposed a leader who counterbalances a
violation by another violation.

The second major finding was that UPM CAS students disapproved a leader who applies a
utilitarian principle of bargaining either the rights of an individual or of the minority for the
general welfare. In terms of the reinforcement of laws, UPM CAS students justified civil
disobedience for laws that create prejudice and injustices. Nevertheless, they rejected the
remaining features including the reinstitution of death penalty for capital crimes, justification
of necessary violence in times of crises such as invasion and war, and prioritization of
punishment for the offenders above rehabilitation. Taken together, these results suggest that
although UPM CAS students favor certain qualities of a strongman leader, still they object to
how these leaders carry out laws and policies. Returning to the question posed at the
beginning of this study, it is now possible to state that UPM CAS students favor only specific
qualities and manifestations of a strongman leadership and not the entire rule per se.

This study leaves many questions in need of further investigation. It is suggested that external
factors such as the political culture or status quo of a particular country are brought in the
analysis of law reinforcement. It is also interesting to associate issues of gender

9|SURVEY REPORT
 discrimination and misogyny to strongman leadership or machismo. The survey report was
also limited in several ways. First, a more in-depth explanation for strongman leadership
should be established. The next report should be more specific to a country or regime.
Second, a convenience sample of 30 respondents should be improved. Given a small sample
size, it would be difficult to conclude whether or not they really approved strongman
leadership without resorting to overgeneralization. Last, further research should provide
comparison to or deconstruction of strongman leadership by associating traditional or other
contemporary leadership styles.

REFERENCES:

Bremmer, I. (2018). The 'strongmen era' is here. Here’s what it means for you. TIME
USA, LLC. Retrieved May 14, 2019, from http://time.com/5264170/the-strongmen-era-
is-here-heres-what-it-means-for-you/.

Clavé, E., et al. (2018). Strongman politics in the 21st century. Harvard University Asia Center.

Hamilton, G. (2017). Return of the strongman: 'It's a perfect storm against democracy right
now.' National Post. Retrieved May 14, 2019, from
https://nationalpost.com/news/world/return-of-the-strongman-a-perfect-storm-against-
democracy-right-now.

Taussig, T. (2017). The rise of personalist rule. Brookings. Retrieved May 14, 2019, from
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2017/03/23/the-rise-of-personalist-
rule/.

10 | S U R V E Y R E P O R T
 APPPENDICES

Table 3.0
Tally sheet of responses in a 5-point Likert scale
Respondents Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10
1 3 4 1 4 2 5 4 1 1 3
2 2 5 2 1 2 5 2 3 2 4
3 2 4 2 2 2 5 2 3 2 3
4 3 4 3 3 4 5 3 3 2 4
5 3 4 3 4 1 5 1 1 5 4
6 3 5 3 4 1 5 1 2 1 1
7 1 5 2 5 4 5 5 1 1 2
8 3 5 4 4 1 4 4 3 2 2
9 4 5 3 4 2 5 3 2 2 2
10 2 5 2 4 5 4 2 2 2 4
11 3 4 2 3 3 4 2 2 2 3
12 2 5 3 5 1 5 3 1 1 3
13 2 5 3 1 4 5 4 4 2 4
14 3 5 2 5 1 5 1 3 2 2
15 1 5 1 2 1 4 1 1 1 5
16 2 4 4 3 1 4 2 2 3 4
17 2 5 3 2 1 4 1 1 1 1
18 2 5 3 3 1 5 1 1 2 3
19 3 5 2 4 1 5 1 2 1 3
20 4 3 4 5 5 5 4 4 2 1
21 4 5 2 3 2 4 1 1 1 4
22 3 5 4 5 3 4 3 4 1 3
23 3 5 1 4 1 5 1 3 1 2
24 2 5 2 3 4 5 3 3 3 4
25 3 5 5 4 2 5 4 4 3 3
26 4 5 2 2 1 5 2 4 2 2
27 2 5 2 5 1 5 1 2 1 5
28 3 5 3 1 1 5 1 3 1 1
29 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 4 3 4
30 3 3 5 5 3 3 4 5 4 2

Legend:
5 – Strongly agree
4 – Agree
3 – Neutral
2 – Disagree
1 – Strongly disagree

11 | S U R V E Y R E P O R T
 Survey-questionnaire

Dear respondents,

We are conducting a survey entitled “Do UPM-CAS students favor a ‘strongman’ leadership?” The
definition of strongman leadership is based on Max Weber’s four models of political leadership. We
seek to answer whether or not UPM- CAS students favor a strongman rule through statements
corresponding to the characteristics of a strongman leadership.

In connection with this, we request you to answer our survey-questionnaire. Rest assured that your
answers will be only be used for our Communication Skills 2 class and will be kept confidential. Thank
you.

Sincerely yours,

Shanin Kyle C. Manuel Oscar Manalo, Jr.

Name (optional): _____________________________________ Age: ______

Year and Course: ___________________________

Direction: Shade the circle that indicates your response.

(5 – Strongly agree, 4 – Agree, 3 – Neutral, 2 – Disagree, 1 – Strongly disagree)

STATEMENTS: 5 4 3 2 1
1. I prefer a leader who displays a tough-talking attitude o o o o o
rather than a courteous demeanor.
2. I prefer a leader who is a nationalist. o o o o o
3. I prefer a leader that sort things out man-to-man, an eye o o o o o
for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.
4. If a law does not provide justice, then it is justifiable to o o o o o
defy the law.
5. Capital punishment is justified for heinous crimes such o o o o o
as rape and murder.
6. I prefer a leader who prioritizes an anti-corruption drive, o o o o o
like the abolition of corrupt elites in public offices.
7. I believe that violence may be returned with necessary o o o o o
violence.
8. In able to reinforce people to follow rules, punishment is o o o o o
more effective than a merit system.
9. If sacrificing the rights of minority means social security o o o o o
of many, then the sacrifice is justifiable.
10. I understand that my liberty can be compromised for the o o o o o
greater good.

12 | S U R V E Y R E P O R T