A Long Reign Isn't Necessary Tyrannical, a Short Reign Isn't Necessary Benevolent

As the call for charter change (or constitutional reform) happens, I must write this entry. Let me remind you that I'm no fact-checker so many of my posts labeled under "facts vs. gossip" may be very wrong. I recall the anti-cha-cha ad that happened in the 1990s and the 2000s. One of them was during the reign of the late Fidel V. Ramos. The Marcos Years (1965-1986) were often said to be dictatorial not because of how the late Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr. ruled but how long he ruled. One of the ads said, "Just think, under a parliamentary system, a president will rule for more than six years. A scary thought, right?" 

I talked with some people about the rule of Marcos Sr. Some told me that, unlike the current president, Marcos Sr. was a vindictive person. It was also known that Marcos Sr. himself has documented human rights abuses. LKY even recalled in his book From Third World to First how the Philippines was left in a terrible condition. It's a shame that some people quote LKY but never bother to see the rest of what LKY has to say about the Philippines. One of them included that speech at the Philippine dinner conference which also said: 

First : Restore law and order. Make Manila safe from organised kidnapping and major crimes.

Second : Concentrate on economics not politics or more accurately, politicking . Lift restrictions on trade and investment. Dismantle the web of measures which keep out foreign companies and make Philippine companies compete to survive, not thrive at the expense of ordinary Filipinos.

Third : Build up your infrastructure, like power stations, roads and communications, either in partnership with or completely by the private sector.

One man whose short reign proved a short reign isn't necessarily benevolent

Now, it's time to think about one person who outperformed Marcos Sr. namely Saloth Sar, aka known by his nom de guerre Pol Pot. Pol Pot only ruled Cambodia from 1976 to 1979. Pol Pot may have been called a "prime minister" but he was no parliamentarian. Just because a country has a prime minister, doesn't make it a parliamentary government. That also includes Cesar Virata, who LKY called, a non-starter and no leader.  

Image Source: Britannica

Reading this Philippine Star editorial did me highlight that Pol Pot did more damage than Marcos Sr. did from 1965 to 1986. Marcos Sr. later tried to perpetuate himself in power using a fake parliament. The late Benigno Simeon A. Aquino Jr. was right to call it a parliamentary without a parliament. The 1973 Constitution of the Philippines kept getting amendments until Marcos Sr. was a president with powers. Virata wasn't ruling the country but Marcos Sr. did. Just reading this gave me the chill how Pol Pot outdid Marcos Sr. in terms of being a totalitarian: 

The Khmer Rouge ruled Cambodia only from 1975 to 1979. In those few years, however, the Communist Party of Kampuchea under Pol Pot turned Cambodia into killing fields, with the party’s radical experiment in agrarian socialism leaving an estimated two million people dead.

Pol Pot committed suicide in 1998 while being held by a rival faction of the Khmer Rouge, and was not made to account for the genocide perpetrated under his watch. Last Thursday, however, a special Cambodian court backed by the United Nations found two other ranking Khmer Rouge leaders guilty of crimes against humanity and sentenced them to life in prison.

There may not be much of life left in Nuon Chea, 88, called “Brother Number Two” when he was deputy secretary of the Khmer Rouge, and “Brother Number Four” Khieu Samphan, 83, president of Democratic Kampuchea. Several survivors of the genocide also expressed disappointment and said the punishment was not enough to give them closure.

But the two men are the highest ranking Khmer Rouge members to be brought to justice, and their punishment helps put Cambodia on the difficult road to healing. As stories of the genocide are revived following the verdict, the world is reminded that for the survivors, the atrocities can be impossible to forget. In the Cambodian capital Phnom Penh, victims’ skulls are piled high in a museum as a chilling reminder of the reign of terror and an admonition that it must not happen again.

The Cambodian genocide occurred at the height of systematic human rights violations perpetrated in the Philippines during martial law by the regime of Ferdinand Marcos. While the violations were nowhere near the scale of the Cambodian mass murder, justice has eluded the victims of martial law.

Here's an excerpt from the Britannica which will give an idea of how much more damage Pol Pot could do compared to Marcos Sr., in just four years:

Pol Pot declared 1975 to be “Year Zero,” when Cambodia was to be isolated and its society remade in accordance with communist ideals. Civil rights and property rights were immediately eliminated, and any pubic expression of religious belief was forbidden. Taking the view that Cambodian society had been corrupted by exposure to the world beyond Cambodia’s borders, the new regime started destroying evidence of Western influence, emptying cities and force-marching the urban population into the countryside to engage in hopelessly inadequate agricultural projects. As starvation and disease set in, these actions alone would have created a significant humanitarian disaster.

The Khmer Rouge also persecuted and killed minorities, particularly ethnic Chinese and Vietnamese, in large numbers. Other targets included Cham Muslims, of whom 70–80 percent of the population was exterminated; professionals such as doctors, lawyers, and teachers; and anyone who could remotely be described as “intellectual,” which included anyone wearing spectacles or who could speak a foreign language. The Tuol Sleng Prison in Phnom Penh became a centre for mass murder, and there were rural sites—referred to as the Killing Fields, which is also the title of a 1984 film that brought the plight of Khmer Rouge victims to worldwide attention—where a huge number of people were executed. As hundreds of thousands of Cambodians fled into Thailand, the genocide intensified, with the Khmer Rouge turning on itself and murdering thousands of suspected traitors and spies in its ranks. By November 1978, when Vietnam invaded and put an end to the Khmer Rouge’s excesses, at least 1.25 million and as many as 3 million Cambodians had died as a result of Khmer Rouge action; Cambodia’s population had been 7.5 million. Even though the Khmer Rouge kept extensive records, many disappeared into Vietnamese archives, and so the exact number of victims has not been ascertained; the working consensus is 2 million.

Ruling beyond six years isn't a recipe for tyranny either

While Marcos Sr.'s reign shouldn't be excused, I'd like to point out once more that ruling for more than six years is no problem. A long reign isn't necessarily tyrannical (unless one was like Mao Zedong who ruled for 26 years). The issue has never been the length of time one ruled but the quality of the rule. The first Marcos Administration's problem also involved rampant economic protectionism. 

China Daily

Think of how long Lee Kuan Yew ruled Singapore for 31 years. I always point out to those who blindly adore the late former president Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III as the "best president in the Universe" (okay, I'm exaggerating) that a parliamentary system would grant more terms. The Second Mactan Airport's lot was opened in 2015. Do you think Aquino III had all the time to finish it when his reign ended sometime in 2016? There would be a big risk that former president Rodrigo R. Duterte may have canceled it. Fortunately, Duterte decided to finish those projects that Aquino III couldn't complete because of time constraints. I even think of that expressway project last 2016, can it be done in such a short amount of time? 

We need to think of the length of time prime ministers held office. For example, we can think of:

• Mahathir Mohamad served as Malaysia's prime minister from 1981 to 2003 and then from 2018 to 2020. It made me think too bad that Ramos never reached that consensus. That means his regime had covered the reigns of the following Philippine presidents:
• Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr.
• Maria Corazon S. Cojuangco-Aquino
• Fidel V. Ramos
• Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo
• LKY ruled Singapore as prime minister from 1959 to 1990 (31 years). Unlike Marcos Sr., he made Singapore go from third-world to first. President Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr. is plain out wrong to defend his father's regime. That means, his regime had covered the reigns of these Philippine presidents:
• Carlos P. Garcia aka Mr. Filipino First Guy 
• Diosdado Macapagal
• Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr. 
• Maria Corazon S. Cojuangco-Aquino
• Currently, Lee Hsien Loong reigns since 2004 and it's already 2024. That means he was prime minister during the following Philippine presidents:
• Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo from the time she replaced Joseph Marcelo Ejercito as president up to her controversial second regime.
• Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III
• Rodrigo R. Duterte
• Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr. 
• Angela Merkel of Germany ruled from 2005 to 2021. That's much longer than when the late Adolf Hitler ruled Nazi Germany with an iron fist. In short, it's again the quality of the rule that makes one a tyrant and not the length of the rule. That means her reign covered the following Philippine presidents:
• Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo from the time she replaced Joseph Marcelo Ejercito as president up to her controversial second regime.
• Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III
• Rodrigo R. Duterte 

I use LSH as an example of why the Philippines should go parliamentary. I told some Yellows saying "If we were in a parliamentary, Noynoy et al could've used a second, third, fourth term!" Instead, they still appeal to the Marcos "parliament". That's a claim already proven wrong by Aquino Jr. (read here). I even talked about that if Marcos Jr. were the prime minister, Atty. Maria Leonor Gerona-Robredo could serve as the opposition leader. Instead, some of them still go boo hoo thinking about the fake parliament of Marcos Sr., as if it was a real parliament. 

The Nordic countries are mostly parliamentary. Good prime ministers can expect to rule for more than six years. If not, they can expect to be removed from office in less than a month. Parliamentarians are also subjected to frequent scrutiny. There's the opposition party that holds the government party accountable. How can a prime minister become all too ruthless if there's a balancing opposition? Another reason why Marcos Sr.'s parliamentary was not parliamentary was because of a lack of real opposition. Where were the direct debates between Marcos Sr. and Aquino Jr.? Aquino Jr. was an opposition leader in the sense, that he opposed Marcos Sr., but never debated Marcos Jr. in parliament. Where are the videos of Virata engaging the opposition? 

The number of years can be benevolent or destructive. In a parliamentary system, fear of a prolonged dictatorship is rather slim. Sure, the parliamentary system isn't perfect. There are times I think Singapore needs to ease up on certain restrictions. However, I'd like to say that a long reign can be benevolent. A good leader deserves more terms. A bad leader deserves no new term. It's all about the quality of the rule, not the number of years ruled.