The Emergence of the Strongman Recently across the globe, a new wave of politics has emerged – it is the return of the so-called strongmen in politics. In Southeast Asia alone, we have countries led by strongmen figures. Brunei is led by a Sultan head; The Prime Minister of Cambodia, Mr. Hun Sen, is known for being a tough leader who uses government thugs to fight off politicians who belong to the opposition. He is also said to have a “stranglehold” on the Cambodian economy with businesses and interests in highly profitable economic sectors like mining, finance, energy, and trade. His hold and control of the factors of production fortifies his existence as a strongman in Cambodian politics. In the Philippines, the people elected Rodrigo …show more content…
He said “some voters do not share democratic values, and politicians must appeal to them as well. These voters are simply more attracted to a system that favors their own particular religion, race, gender or birth position. When large inequalities exist, the problem is aggravated: People tend to take out their resentment on groups they believe don’t share their way of life.” It has been said that one key characteristic of strongmen is their capacity to ostracize those people who don’t belong to their group. Despite being polarizing figures, strongmen find their power in loyal supporters who believe with their vision. The isolation of the strongman’s group as superior to the rest causes those on his side to rally hard for his causes. They feel that by supporting the strongman, they are actually bolstering the importance of their social …show more content…
Strongmen are skilled at framing situations and issues that can help project them as the person skilled for the rigors of doing a hard, dirty, and difficult job. The political and social conditions that brought Hitler and other strong men like Stalin and Lenin after the year 1873 in Europe are similar conditions that has given rise to the strong men we have today both in global and national politics. In the Philippines, Duterte won by focusing on his platform of eradicating crime, fixing the country’s problems in six months, and fighting off drug lords who pervade and influence even the smallest communities and baranggays in the Philippines. The need of people for security gives strongmen a source of power. In times of conflict, people seem to be more willing to give up some of their rights and to succumb to the strongman. It’s true that not everyone will surrender to the strongman, but the assurance brought by their boldness attracts many supporters. Strongmen are usually polarizing people. They divide and conquer. Similar to the ancient world wherein wars between tribes were common, strongmen also love to wage wars with a certain opponent. This gives them something to fight against. This also becomes a source of strength. People who are afraid of facing strong enemies especially because of the risks it entails support a strongman who shows that he has the capacity to defeat the public
He claimed that it would create a coalition of minorities while never letting one control the
he has to make it clear, through his words and deeds that he is not weak. He has to be willing to fight in response to even the slightest challenge to his reputation" (Gladwell 166-167) In order for no one to steal the herdsman 's herds, he had to threaten
He claimed, “Let both sides explore what problems unite us, instead of belaboring those problems which divide us.” Previously, he supported his claim using causal inference that explained the benefits of freedom and peace over war and oppression. He said, “United, there is little we cannot do, in a host of cooperative ventures. Divided, there is little we can do. For we dare not meet a powerful challenge at odds, and split asunder.”
presidents have repeatedly led the country into many unnecessary wars to test and prove their core masculinity is highly exaggerated. In her treatment of psychopathic leadership, she identifies machismo as the primary trait of leaders. But there have been instances where even women leaders have been instrumental in leading their country to war. - She also cites masculine characteristics and irrational thinking as the primary reasons behind U.S. interventions all around the globe. But this cannot be the only reason for these wars.
If there is hatred in the prince’s civilians, then there is revolt and the prince will be dethroned. If there is hatred in the foreign civilians, then there is war. But once the prince wins the war, he will gain control of the enemy state. The foreign civilians that hated him will fall under his domain. While the new civilians will hate the prince at first, this hatred will fade as they realize the extent of the prince’s protection.
To rebel against the government to defend their beliefs. As he said: ‘’Let every-man make known what government would command his respect, and that will be step towards obtaining it’’. Another point he points out is that treat their bodies as men and not as machines: ‘’The mass of men serve the state thus, not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies’’. The last example he used to influence his audience is that their treated as dirt. While the government is more of a major ruler like earth. ‘’
He argued that the only way we can control this faction which is impossible to remove, is to control the results or consequences. That the country needs to stay under a proper form of government balancing one and other, check and balance. He wanted government elected by many. The idea of faction has been shown in history and
Martin Luther King Jr Response Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Letter From Birmingham Jail” is a beautifully composed letter with many passionate points and remarks which I found exceptionally intriguing. Martin Luther King made countless great statements, however I did find two particularly outstanding passages that stood out to me which spoke about the term “extremist” given to Martin Luther King’s nonviolent approach to attain justice and equality as well as the fact that many of his white “Christian brother’s” as well as his “black brothers” had a great significance in this revolution. Martin Luther King Jr.’s passage that expresses his thoughts on being labeled as taking “extremist” measures states, “But though I was initially disappointed
Through words and literary devices, language allows people to express beliefs to their audiences. During the Civil Rights Movement, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. utilizes language to encourage his audience to take action against segregation, especially the white moderates, who are his biggest hurdle in achieving his goals. In his famous letter, "Letter from Birmingham Jail," King uses metaphors, rhetorical questions, and allusions to create pathos and ethos, while discussing his dissatisfaction concerning the white moderates, who wish to minimize the urgency for action in the battle for equality. King describes the white moderates through metaphors reflecting instability and ineffectiveness to show their interference in the nation's progress.
Whenever people are able to band together against a common enemy or antagonist, they feel a sense of connection and even obligation to the hero that is able to dominate the villain. In Mortenson’s case, it was much easier for him to identify a villain to present to his audiences and financier. Mortenson was able to introduce an antagonist that millions of people throughout the world already loathed. The Taliban, which is an Islamic militant group that operates in both Pakistan and Afghanistan, is able to use religious extremism to gain overwhelming support in regions that are poverty ridden and lack basic human rights and education. Mortenson was able to use the hate that overwhelming amounts of people already feel towards this group to further his own agenda.
Introduction Human history is abundant in examples of individuals who have amassed such power with themselves that have allowed them to control entire populations, and often unleash tyranny and oppression upon millions of people. Throughout history there have been individuals who have held an iron grip over entire nations, concentrating totalitarian power with themselves, denying any freedom to people, crushing any form of dissent, and often unleashing mass violence, terror, and in some cases genocide. These people have shaped the future of peoples, regions and continents, starting wars and conflicts, and determining the course of millions of lives. And because of this very fact, that a single person could such a huge impact over the lives of so many people, it is very important to study the very factors that caused these individuals to make the decisions that they did, specifically, the factors and that shaped up the personality of these
Most people question, “ How does the quest of power cause people to act? ”. Over the years the question has been proved to cause people to act differently. Not just in history but in many movies, plays, books, and even in current events today. The quest of power drives people to do things out of their character.
Various reasons prove this, though the people believe that they are better best served before the state, history only shows the most benevolent and the most hated rulers. So if a ruler rules just to be well-liked history does not show that they had any significance because none of the people are left to remember what acts of kindness they performed. If a leader is feared but provides huge expansion and sets up their state to be successful in the future they are remembered as important to causing their state to be the way it is today. In truth, all people serve to their own interests and will turn on anyone who goes against it unless they are controlled. It is nearly impossible to control people with their love for ruler because they will not love the ruler once the ruler goes against their interests, but if they fear the ruler they will fear going against them and stay under the influence of their ruler.
Power can have the persuasive action in undoing the moral ethics of one’s character. This can be seen throughout history, such as World War II and proven by the actions of Napoleon in the allegory, Animal Farm, by George Orwell. As Lord Acton said “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” In history what was viewed as a villain, is never the same as the perception. A leader does not begin wanting to do wrong, they start with the best intentions, but power is a tricky thing.
Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power. There are many different types of leadership and they all react differently to power. A leadership style like authoritarian usually has the leader forcing others to do certain things, for example most corporate bosses tell you to do your task or you 'll be fired. Giving power to an authoritative leader usually goes wrong, they think they can get away with things and that no one can question them. This leadership style usually leads to giving very few people power, which leads to corruption.