When Power Becomes Performance: Why Governance by Shock Fails Democracies
By Karl Garcia
In different political systems and cultures, Donald Trump and Rodrigo Duterte practiced a similar style of leadership: governance by shock, confrontation, and personal dominance. Their supporters often praised this approach as “strong leadership” or a necessary disruption of elite complacency. Yet with the benefit of distance and evidence, it is increasingly clear that this style of rule produces more institutional damage than durable reform.
This is not a moral argument about personality. It is a governance argument about outcomes.
Power as spectacle, not capacity
Both leaders relied heavily on rhetoric, threats, and public confrontation to project authority. This approach treats power as something performed rather than exercised through institutions. Decisions are announced dramatically, opponents are shamed publicly, and complexity is reduced to slogans.
Such tactics can generate short-term compliance and political loyalty. But governance is not sustained by spectacle. It depends on bureaucratic competence, legal predictability, and coordination among institutions. When policy is driven by impulse or personal loyalty rather than process, implementation weakens and accountability erodes.
Over time, the state becomes reactive rather than strategic.
Institutions as obstacles instead of assets
A defining feature of this governing style is hostility toward mediating institutions—courts, legislatures, civil services, alliances, and even professional expertise. These are framed as impediments to “decisive action.”
Yet institutions exist precisely because modern societies are too complex to be governed by personal will alone. When leaders bypass or undermine them, they may accelerate decisions, but they also hollow out the very mechanisms needed to sustain those decisions.
In the United States, this manifested in policy reversals, diplomatic instability, and weakened alliances. In the Philippines, it contributed to legal uncertainty, uneven enforcement of law, and long-term institutional fragility.
Coercion mistaken for leadership
Threats—whether against political opponents, other branches of government, or foreign partners—are often confused with strength. In reality, coercion is a blunt instrument. It works best against weaker actors and fails against systems governed by law, markets, or collective decision-making.
The Greenland episode under Trump illustrates this limit. Loud assertions of power produced headlines but not results. Similarly, Duterte’s reliance on fear and force addressed symptoms while leaving structural causes—poverty, institutional weakness, governance gaps—largely intact.
Leadership that depends on coercion reaches a ceiling quickly. Leadership that builds consent and capacity scales.
The hidden cost: normalized dysfunction
Perhaps the most lasting damage of this style is cultural. When shock politics becomes normalized, citizens begin to associate chaos with decisiveness and cruelty with effectiveness. Law is seen as optional, and governance becomes transactional rather than principled.
This leaves societies vulnerable. When the leader exits, institutions are weaker, norms are eroded, and successors inherit systems less capable of solving complex problems.
The appeal of such leadership lies in real frustrations: inequality, corruption, slow justice, and unresponsive elites. But addressing these challenges requires institutional reform, not institutional bypassing.
Why it matters not to repeat this path
The question is not whether Trump or Duterte identified real problems—they often did. The question is whether their method of governing strengthened the state’s ability to solve those problems sustainably.
The evidence suggests it did not.
In an era defined by climate risk, technological disruption, geopolitical competition, and social fragmentation, states need resilience, coordination, and trust. These are built slowly, through boring but necessary work: rulemaking, enforcement, professionalization, and accountability.
Governance by shock undermines precisely these capacities.
Conclusion
Strong leadership is not measured by volume, threats, or fear. It is measured by whether institutions function better after a leader leaves than before they arrived.
The lesson from the Trump and Duterte years is not partisan. It is structural. Societies that confuse forceful rhetoric with effective governance pay a long-term price.
Avoiding a return to this style is not about civility. It is about protecting the state’s capacity to govern—after the applause fades.
The Society of Honor by Joe America 
In January 2026, a diplomatic crisis over
Greenland culminated in what many observers describe as a significant “climbdown” by President Donald Trump. While the episode demonstrated the limits of his ability to coerce allies through economic and military threats, it also fundamentally damaged transatlantic trust.
The Limits of Coercion (January 2026)
Geopolitical Impact
Ultimately, the 2026 Greenland crisis served as a proof of concept for the EU’s ability to resist unilateral U.S. pressure, signaling that coercion from a superpower can be successfully countered by collective regional action.
In January 2026, President Donald Trump reiterated his claim that he has successfully “stopped 8 wars” during his first year back in office. He often pairs this claim with complaints about being overlooked for the Nobel Peace Prize, which he believes he deserves for these diplomatic achievements.
The 8 Conflicts Trump Claims to Have Ended
According to the White House and Trump’s public statements, the eight wars he has “settled” include:
Fact-Checking and Criticisms
Independent analysts and foreign governments have contested several of these claims:
President Trump maintains his long-held argument that tariffs will boost domestic manufacturing and bring jobs back to the
United States, a claim he reiterated on the 2024 campaign trail and since returning to office. However, recent economic data and analysis from economists suggest the opposite has occurred.
Economic Data and Analysis
Since broad tariffs were introduced in April 2025, the manufacturing sector has shed 72,000 jobs nationwide through December 2025. Economists note that while tariffs reduce import competition, they also increase the cost of essential components for domestic manufacturers, leading to higher prices for consumers and overall job losses across other sectors like agriculture and construction.
Public Opinion and Recent Events
A 2025 poll found that while 59% of Americans hoped the tariffs would create manufacturing jobs, a larger majority, 70%, believed they would drive up U.S. inflation.
In late January 2026, President Trump threatened to impose 100% tariffs on Canadian goods if Canada proceeds with a potential trade deal with China, an action that auto industry executives have warned could disrupt North American manufacturing and harm U.S. jobs.
In January 2026, discussions regarding Donald Trump and the Nobel Peace Prize intensified following a highly publicized meeting at the White House where 2025 laureate María Corina Machado presented him with her physical medal.
Recent Developments (January 2026)
Arguments for Awarding Him the Prize
Arguments Against and Criticism
As of January 2026, the International Criminal Court (ICC) has compiled an extensive body of evidence against former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, who is currently in detention at The Hague
. The prosecution has disclosed more than 1,300 pieces of evidence to his defense team.
Key Evidence Categories
Current Legal Status
ahem, medyo hindi yata ito tama, governance by shock fails democracy. in our experience, it fails more the people who orchestrated the governance by shock and duterte is fine example: liveth by shocking others, and himself got electrified! short circuited, and spectacularly shocked. our democracy might have been badly eroded with duterte at the helm, but our democracy is mightier than him and summat robust, it has able defenders and can stand being stretched thin, derided, eroded, but not simply breaking away. and now, duterte is 1st to taste the bile of his handiwork and got the reckoning of his life, bundled up and unceremoniously taken to the hague!
it is apparent bato is being hounded by his own fears! of being bundled and taken to the hauge too, to face the justice he so readily meted out to others who did not meet the standard he and duterte apparently concocted. there are higher standards, and soon, bato will be measured against it.
Yes thanks for the very valid correction. Shock governance fail the people first and foremost.
During his presidency, Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines became infamous for his abrasive rhetoric, which included highly publicized insults directed at global leaders.
Insulting Pope Francis
Insulting Barack Obama
Rodrigo Duterte’s 2016 campaign, themed around the slogan “Change is Coming,” focused on a “law-and-order” model to “fix” the
Philippines by aggressively targeting crime, corruption, and systemic inequality.
Core Campaign Pillars
Specific Policy Pledges
Implementation and Outcomes
under implementation and outcomes:
did AI just forget to mention the 5 months battle of marawi where 165 soldiers died, as well as 47 civilians and 1000 insurgents? marawi city then became a ghost town, and after rehab marawi is still unfulfilled with only 72% of marawi was able to be rehabbed, and still there are pockets in marawi left in ruins, with maranoans still in temporary accommodations. if their existence is already expunged in history, AI has much to answer for!
Humans have better memory.
Thanks KB
IMHO it is not useful to focus on “the man” of Trump or Duterte, but rather to focus on what conditions and systemic issues created the environment for a Trump or Duterte to rise to power. As to “the man,” they will not remain in power forever due to term limits, popular backlash to overreach and simple incompetence, or the inevitability of the actuarial tables which have never lost a bet.
At a high-level simplistic view 40+ years of emotionless, cold and uncaring technocratic governance in both the US and the Philippines set the opening scene. Even a well-meaning system that is too pro-business uses the tools of technocracy in the negative sense, moving services and policy around like a corporate balance sheet, maybe with the original goal of balancing business growth and the needs of the citizens. Of course the wealthy interests have much more money to juice politics when the populace is not paying attention. Even in my lifetime I have seen American corporations become more like rent-seekers, hoarding government subsidies and concessions, gutting their research and development departments because there is no reason to innovate when the consumer is captured. Something similar occurs in the Philippines with major Philippine enterprises while not having the subsidies afforded by the US to its corporations, effectively have a captured consumer, control of import licenses and the means by which to distribute goods, control of desirous real estate in places that have jobs, and no will to innovate on anything. All the while as the “balance sheet” tilts more towards the monied interest people are kept alive, but barely surviving, their education, opportunity, dreams taken away from them.
Institutions that were previously more open minded which fosters things like academic excellence, introduction of new ideas, the bolstering of civic society over the same period became more exclusive. Before my time an “average” student might not be able to get an acceptance extended to the University of California, Berkeley, but could get into the University of California, Los Angeles. During my years as a student at Berkeley it was already hard to get accepted; now, exponentially more so. Even moderate conservative academics have been run out of American universities, while the liberal majority of academia acquiesces to the insanity of a few far-left tenured professors. The situation in American private universities is far worse. How many similarities exist in the Philippines where former institutions of open knowledge such as UP have been co-opted by an elite class despite letting in a few diversity students at times? When institutions become more like exclusive clubs of the elite rather than being places where ideas can be exchanged and considered, it becomes an “other,” an “elite,” unreachable by regular citizens.
When institutions and government apparatus that are expected to serve all become more insular is it so surprising that an increasingly resentful citizenry will fall to charlatans and silver-tongued leaders who offer an “alternative” and an “explanation” to social ills? In the Philippines there are local dynasties that have generations-long chokeholds on their constitution, but more powerful (and dangerous) are those “new dynasties” that rose in the power void after EDSA. Freedom of religion and freedom of association has become co-opted by grifting “pastors” who preach hate and gather large followings, becoming political kingmakers. Equipped with funds, groups can exert control by fanning out spokespeople, influencers, “astroturf” campaigns, and even de facto buy politicians.
The solution it seems to me, while hard to accomplish, is still fairly simple. A government provides services. Protection of civil rights, the right to life and property are services. The opening of opportunity is a service. Access to a quality education is a service. So it is not so surprising that a governmental system that has stopped providing services that people might not explicitly recognize but implicitly understand would have an increasingly desperate people choosing worse leaders or become apathetic. The social contract goes both ways.
You are correct of course.We have been dscussing the environment time and again abd we will stil do. Thanks so much, Joey.
There has a way to gather the support of Filipino tycoons in order to further a platform of national renewal and the good governance that would be enabled by that renewal. I do not think Filipino tycoons are inherently *bad* like I think many American tycoons have become.
I wholly disagree with the extremely adverse environment for foreign investors to set up shop, and do not buy into the “loss of sovereignty” argument. A Nation is sovereign within her own borders and if an interest domestic or foreign misbehaves they are subject to the laws of the Philippines. However, to get around the issue of foreign ownership of land and the opening of new SEZs, there are still plenty of opportunities to have foreign investment pour in *if* the business environment is favorable.
For example in the Chinese model, until recently most non-Chinese companies were prohibited from owning more than 49% of a business operating in China. Foreign businesses are still required to operate in China within a joint venture model, like in the Philippines, except for financial securities businesses like investment funds. Yet foreign capital poured into China after China’s accession to the WTO because the PRC government set up SEZs, built worker dormitories, provided public transportation, improved road infrastructure and connections to export ports, and so on. And just like in the Philippines where foreign companies that do operate in the Philippines often invest 100% despite not owning a majority of the local Philippine joint venture, nearly all foreign investment into China paid for 100% of building industrial infrastructure yet owned a minority stake in the joint venture. The difference is China made it easy to access workers, created a stable business environment, and connected infrastructure to import raw materials and export finished goods.
One thing any business likes is *certainty.* Currently “certainty” in the Philippines business environment seems to me to favor low-effort rent-seeking behavior as it is the safest (and frankly, most logical) bet in the absence of support from the State for more expansive business decisions. So in order to encourage those business decisions that would foster expansive investment Filipino conglomerates need to be assured access to government backing through favorable loans, stable policy (including IRRs), access to capital from foreign investment partners, and so on. In every peer scenario we have discussed together on this blog I and others have pointed out that the conditions above were not originally present; rather the conditions were birthed and nurtured.
With expansion of large enterprises, there are more jobs to employ Filipinos, and small businesses that open to cater to either as subcontractors of large enterprises or to serve the workforce attracted by the aforementioned new jobs. Many new jobs enable a larger corporate and personal income tax base by with to expand other government services and by which to build infrastructure, improve education, enable the movement of desired domestic and foreign goods, and so on. When citizens are provided more and improved government services, they start to “vote the right way” because now they are accumulating new opportunities which they will want to protect access to.
We will contonue to figure things out and offer what is best without thinking we cannot be wrong.
“Strong leadership is not measured by volume, threats, or fear. It is measured by whether institutions function better after a leader leaves than before they arrived.” – Karl G.
But who is measuring? People like me, retired and looking at the situation from afar over a cup of good coffee or a beer while collecting social security? 🙂
I think one of the best known examples of good strong leadership is that of President George Washington. He also had the advantage of having great intellectual people around him who were of high moral integrity. If President Cory Aquino were surrounded by such people in her cabinet, life would have been much easier for her.
Karl’s essay focuses on bad strong leaders.
Why not talk about good strong leaders? People that Univ. of the Philippines is capable of producing.
Will that help the Philippine situation now, talking about good strong leaders? Joey and I had a good exchange about strong leaders.
I admit that I don’t think old people like me talking about strong leaders will help the country. The country needs younger Filipinos who will help Francis’s “poor bum” get into UP and become rich. Younger Filipinos need to develop the “infrastructure” that will integrate all our country’s plans, laws, etc. so that everyone is moving in the same direction as Karl’s essays have been pointing us to.
One key factor to look at when examining leaders (good or bad) is their INTENT for coming into office. Think about it. Trump got into office to avoid jail. Heck of an intention to build a country on, eh? hahaha
When the Soviet Union fell, and the umbilical cord to its satellite Estonia was cut, its young people decided to build a nation where its citizens were rich (Francis’s priority) AND at the same time solved the problem of massive corruption (JoeAm’s big concern) by developing a sophisticated system aided by the technology of computers.
I found that incredibly exciting. If I was PBBM, I would study Estonia, send a delegation there to learn all it can about their nation building capabilities, AND possibly invite a delegation from Estonia to examine the Philippines and see if they can share any of their nation building expertise with Filipinos.
But then we have to look at PBBM’s intent for wanting to be president. Is it the same as George Washington’s? Or is it more like his father’s?
As we used to say back in the day: “That is the 64 question.”
Duly noted with thanks
Benevolent Strong Leadership in the Philippines: Historical Examples and Lessons
The Philippines has long struggled with weak institutions, elite capture, and patronage politics. In such a context, the idea of a “benevolent strong leader”—a leader who exercises decisive authority while genuinely pursuing the public good—has periodically emerged as both a hope and a risk. Philippine history offers several examples of leaders who combined firmness with reformist intent, illustrating both the potential and the limits of strong leadership in a democratic society.
Manuel L. Quezon: Strong Leadership for Nation-Building
Manuel L. Quezon, the first President of the Commonwealth, is often cited as an early example of benevolent strong leadership. Quezon exercised considerable personal power, dominating the political landscape of his time, yet he used this authority to lay the foundations of a modern Filipino state.
His most enduring contributions include the promotion of social justice, the strengthening of national identity, and the institutionalization of the Filipino language. Quezon also pushed for land reform and labor protections, recognizing that political independence without social equity would be hollow. While his leadership style was undeniably centralized and personality-driven, it was largely oriented toward long-term nation-building rather than personal enrichment.
Quezon demonstrates how strong leadership can be constructive when it is guided by a clear national vision and constrained by a commitment—however imperfect—to democratic development.
Ramon Magsaysay: Strength Rooted in Moral Authority
Ramon Magsaysay represents perhaps the clearest Philippine example of benevolent strength grounded not in coercion, but in moral legitimacy. As president, Magsaysay confronted the Huk rebellion not only through military force but through reforms that addressed rural poverty, corruption, and government abuse.
He enforced discipline within the armed forces, cracked down on corruption, and insisted on personal integrity among public officials. His leadership was “strong” because it was decisive and uncompromising against abuse of power—but benevolent because it consistently prioritized the welfare of ordinary Filipinos.
Magsaysay’s popularity stemmed from trust rather than fear. His presidency shows that strong leadership need not undermine democratic norms if authority is exercised transparently and in service of the marginalized.
Sergio Osmeña and Institutional Restraint
While not often labeled a “strongman,” Sergio Osmeña offers a quieter but important counterpoint. Leading during wartime and reconstruction, Osmeña exercised restraint despite extraordinary circumstances. His strength lay in respecting institutions and avoiding the temptation to consolidate power during crisis.
Osmeña’s example reminds us that benevolence in leadership sometimes means not using all available power. In fragile democracies, restraint itself can be a form of strength.
The Limits of Strong Leadership
Philippine history also warns that the line between benevolent strength and authoritarianism is thin. Leaders may begin with reformist intent but drift toward repression when institutions are weak and accountability mechanisms fail. This underscores a key lesson: benevolent strong leadership is most sustainable when it builds institutions rather than substitutes for them.
Strong leaders can catalyze reform, but without institutionalization—rule of law, independent oversight, and civic participation—benevolence depends too heavily on personal character, which is neither predictable nor permanent.
Conclusion
The Philippine experience suggests that benevolent strong leadership is possible, but rare and fragile. Figures like Quezon and Magsaysay show that decisiveness, discipline, and moral clarity can advance national development when aligned with public welfare and democratic principles. At the same time, history makes clear that the ultimate goal should not be strong leaders, but strong institutions—so that governance does not rely on exceptional individuals, but on systems that endure beyond them.
“At the same time, history makes clear that the ultimate goal should not be strong leaders, but strong institutions—so that governance does not rely on exceptional individuals, but on systems that endure beyond them.” – Karl G.
Yes, and guess who is tasked with achieving that ultimate goal – the strong leader!
Did any of those leaders you mention strive for that ultimate goal – strong institutions? Quezon was restrained by the Americans. His work was probably dependent upon the Americans still being in ultimate control. The devil in our midst is good ol’ Patronage!
Swimming againat the current. Sysyphus.
I think our good leaders built institutions that patronage politics could exploit….and exploit they did leaving the bulk of the population feeling like they were swimming upstream.
The solution is a transparent system like what Estonia has. The technology is there, the money is there to purchase it, we have the tech savvy personnel to install it…but where is the will power? “When the going gets tough, the tough go shopping?” Yikes!
Under the Estonia system, the Flood Scandal that went on for at least 10 years to the tune of trillions of pesos could not have happened without the people’s consent. They would have seen it before their very eyes, on computer screens all over the country.
Patronage is a two way street. Leaders or civil servantscslash citizens. Strong institutions are made from strong leadership and strong citizens. If the path is get rich first abd everythung follows then well and good but inclusivity and communism of equal distribution of wealth is another thing. SORRY Joey, it really is complicated, I really want to be in benignOs world where it is simple, really.
I don’t think any reasonable person would want benign0’s world. His worldview is authoritarian. But chasing an equally simple worldview from the opposite end is also not right. The world is complicated but solutions get simpler the closer to home it is. I’d start there.
I just think the whole top-down view is wrong. Mayors don’t exist unless someone voted for them. Kingships don’t come into being unless there is initial popular support. If the top-down view is the solution then why did humans evolve from wandering small family groups into extended tribes then city states then nations? Power is derived through at best popular will, at worst through acquiescence. But ultimately power rises up; power does not flow down.
My view is if the Philippines doesn’t start repairing civil institutions that can be saved and build new ones to replace what can’t be reformed, in 2060 we won’t be that far from where we are now. Except that Filipinos will then metaphorically be able to buy secondhand iPhone 50s to try to keep up with the current iPhone 52.
I maybe consistently inconsistent but recently in line with your south koreas manufacturing rise, I kept on repeating to finish what we started, my repetion of fusing fragmentation which CV is already noticing the pattern and yes I am still unsure of the top down bottom up approach, that I will try to figure out.
The guiding order for both the top and bottom is the Constitution. To the extent that the masses have a moral order consistent with the constitution (honesty, fairness, economic productivity and jobs) I suppose they can lead improved performance. I don’t see any organization there however. No protests. Weak labor unions. Bad voting, which is the anthesis of honesty, etc. No populist leader who is competent. So I see nothing there but vacuum. The Philippines needs a competent leader. More competent than even Aquino, or it is just a line of caretaker presidents, as Randy David has accurately labeled Marcos.
Many thanks for your timely and needed intervention Joe.
Mostly the paralysis has to do with lack of experience, so to solve that one needs to start moving from theory to practice to build experience. In my own career I am a problem solver dealing with not all the time but oftentimes multi-million dollar problems.I apply something called the Pareto Distribution model (80/20 distribution) to identifying solutions, and make liberal use of its corollary the Pareto Principle (80/20 rule). In essence Pareto can be simplified to “start the ball rolling” and results will exponentially accumulate with each additional success.
So along those lines, yes, a lot of stuff in the Philippines is fragmented. Too many people have too many (often conflicting) ideas, and some idea makers are not qualified (or competent) in the first place to propose ideas. There are a lot of starts and stops. It would be useful to keep everything in place and focus on what can be achieved with success relatively quickly in order to build momentum towards confident experience. I’ll still go by the “easiest” route to start fixing many Philippine problems which is a big population of jobless Filipinos and the present opportunity of manufacturing exiting China for various economic and geopolitical reasons. The economic and geopolitical reasons why manufacturing is exiting China matters less to the Philippines, but that is what is discussed in op-eds as if “ha-ha, look at those Chinese loosing business” (who cares?), when what matters is how the Philippines can put as many pieces of the cake on the Philippine plate as possible before only crumbs are left. To start there the Philippines needs to develop industrial relationships, provide a viable business environment, and build the necessary infrastructure to support growth.
Keep everything else in place, solve what can be solved quickly, move onto the next slightly harder to solve problems after that, and so on. After sequencing together “wins,” one may find oneself in a position of looking back and thinking “wow I accomplished a lot.” I tend to leave the 20% hardest things to finish last, though I will keep it in mind in case the target moves while I knock out the easier 80%. Hard things are easier to do once one has experience built up, and the confidence that goes along with that experience. Less talking about plans, make *a* plan, more doing, practice consistency, and so on.
Your DE advocacy is related to Francis theses. CV understood the twisted version of the thesis unfortunately by saying he avered to ignore corruption where imho I do not think that was what he meant.
I may be more “set in my ways” now that I’m older but I am open to new, beneficial ideas. The issue I take with CV is that he seems to try to twist things into his own rigid worldview. Not sure if that is on purpose or not; I’m willing to give leeway and clarify, but patience can only handle so much obtusity.
Francis and I are of the same mind more or less on this subject though given our age difference he and I may approach from slightly different angles towards the same destination. Solve the problem of so many poor Filipinos with little or nothing to protect, and suddenly we may find ourselves with Filipinos demanding leadership do more to protect their newfound progress, which includes corruption reduction. Francis did not expound on a particular plan to get Filipinos more “stuff,” however bringing in factory work so that even uneducated Filipinos may have decent well-salaried jobs is a straightforward way to get Filipinos that “stuff.”
“CV understood the twisted version of the thesis unfortunately by saying he avered to ignore corruption where imho I do not think that was what he meant.” – Karl G.
Not quite accurate, Karl. I don’t know what the “twisted version is.” I did give to JoeAm the actual words of Francis. If I were to interpret those words, I would say that his position was to SET ASIDE the focus on corruption in favor of making “poor bum” (his analogy) rich. Now I admit that setting aside is very similar to ignoring…but they are not the same, else English would not have created two words for the same thing. 🙂
Too bad Francis is not around enough to speak for himself.
Your synonym homonym exampe is still fresh in my memory bank
That’s interesting. I suppose for me “hard” would be like chairing meetings, so I didn’t have many meetings, so as you said. Hard would also be meeting with business partners to hammer out contacts with each side having attorneys president. But hard was necessary. My priorities were the most impactful things first, even if hard. Most people gravitate to the things they like to do, which may not be the work that is needed. I think “impact” is the best basis for setting priorities.
I don’t like chairing meetings too, but in my role it is necessary. Sometimes it can feel like herding cats.
Agree on impactful things, even if hard. If there are only a few hard things with no other choice, absolutely. Though I think we can also agree that given once let’s say 10 impactful actions are identified, it would be useful to hammer out the easier items first to build momentum. Momentum, and sustaining momentum is something that strikes me as lacking in the Philippines.
Agree, and really like that herding cats description. Exactly what it is.
this also is my experience in creating IT solutions, often it is better to first have stuff that works, then keep improving it step by step. Oh, for sure the likes of benign0 might call that “puwede na” and some UP Diliman types might call it “mediocre” but exactly that is what keeps the Philippines from progressing. Sometimes one has to start with simple stuff, but not stick with it (that would be “puwede na”) and not too simple either as in totally improvised, “mediocre”..
your above comment on how Sokor built its car industry is one of the favorites I have saved as an example for an incremental approach.
I do remember also how Karl’s late father in a radio interview said something like “we have to increase our maritime awareness, but we have to start by clearing Manila Bay of garbage”. A clearly military mindset of doing first things first, or just an orderly mindset of prioritizing the worst issues I guess.
What if the real problem is that Philippine leadership are akin to middle managers? Not just in our field of IT, but generally across organizations both private and public, the middle manager class are largely useless paper pushers who deploy buzz words they barely learned on LinkedIn to confuse and survive, rarely adding anything useful to projects. A middle manager expects their assistant to do all their work because they have the “important” role of attending meetings. In the US there is the phenomenon of engineers and experts being replaced by MBA-types who lack experience and intellectual curiosity and are utterly useless. I have seen something similar in the Philippines too, except most of the time they don’t even bother to obtain an MBA there. It is not a requirement for a leader to be an SME in every area the leader touches, but it *is necessary* for a leader to appoint good advisors and be able to make a decision on which direction to go, then stick with it.
Honestly I don’t think it is possible to turn the country into a cookie-cutter version of the exterior features of First World countries (the shiny high-rises, economic powerhouse, etc.) if there is no foundation from which to work from. Stuff works in linear progression and if there is no attempt to progress even a bit, how would one get to the destination? As decades go on the Philippines actually has more opportunity to integrate lessons learned elsewhere, where others invested the sweat and tears of “figuring stuff out.” It is a lot easier to learn calculus than to be a Pythagoras inventing what we think of as “mathematics.” There is no will to go through hard steps. There is a desire to just “have it,” which tbh ends up being waiting for charity and assistance, like what eventually designed and completed the DDS-touted CCLEX.
Actually in the Philippines IMHO the feeling is more like a need to be unique and invent something wholly Filipino, when in actuality what is done is a superficial approximation of what the Philippines considers “great” (i.e. what Filipinos envy of others). All that time attempting to be unique and “Filipino,” the Philippines could have just taken the lessons learned from others, let’s say South Korea, and “speed run” (to use an old school console gaming term) towards the goal line. South Korea integrated lessons learned from Japan, compressing the time needed to vault to the goal. Japan industrialization learned from the Germans, who in turn learned from the British, then later learned from the US to re-industrialize after the War. The US learned from the British and exported the American industrial model across the world. Over time available examples meant that the effort to be expended to “repeat” a prior example got compressed from hundreds of years (UK), to a hundred years (US), to 50 years (South Korea), then a mere matter of 2 dozen years (China).
If one constantly looks at the far-off destination, one does not look at the path in front of oneself as the journey starts. Unsurprising that one would stumble on obvious rocks that are right there in front of oneself.
Excellent. The characterization of middle managers is perfect, and upper management has gone fishing.
Irineo’s references to Dilbert are especially apt, as the Dilbert comics perfectly captured the rise of the office middle manager in 1990s corporations. Unfortunately the late Scott Adams (the creator of Dilbert) eventually came to imbue much of the Pointy-Haired Boss (PHB) he so disparaged.
Personally I can’t complain I suppose as these risk-adverse middle managers reporting bad information about exaggerated risks to upper management is exactly why I was able to be paid the big bucks as an outside consultant and functionally “retire” in my 30s to now have the latitude to pick and choose the projects I actually want to work on. For everyone else the experience has generally been not so nice.