The Disadvantages of An Authoritarian Style Leadership

Many Filipinos consider an iron-fist or authoritarian style of leadership to be a good thing. It’s usually framed as the “tough love” that we need from the nation’s leader that will finally lead to Filipinos disciplining themselves in the hopes that this will lead to the country’s development. While an authoritarian style of leadership can ideologically have its merits, if we look at history, strongmen leaders certainly have committed more harm than good to their nations.

Authoritarian leaders have led to economic recessions

Melbourne political scientists analyzed over 150 years of history across 180+ states and it was found out that more often than not, dictators have led to a downfall of the economy. In an authoritarian style of government, the leader usually consolidates all the power to himself, taking away the usual checks and balances that allow for better experts to handle economic policies. As a case in point, as Venezuela’s dictator Nicolas Maduro continues to lead the country, the Venezuela bolivar continues to lose its purchasing power, to the point that every bill is so useless, people fold them to make bags or paper mache.

Authoritarian leaders are related to human rights violations

Just like a famous 18th-century politician said, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Man is very fickle and when he is given the highest position in the land, from which he can virtually do anything, he is guaranteed to take advantage of it. He is guaranteed to keep that position of wealth and power no matter what it takes and it doesn’t matter if people will need to be killed or silenced to do so. This is why many autocrats have utilized human rights violations to stay in power. As a case in point, Hitler, who was Germany’s most famous dictator, led the Holocaust which led to the killings and genocide of the Jews for his race to remain superior.

Authoritarian leadership leads to the suffering of the masses

Under authoritarian leaders, the people, who have no power, suffer the most. Firstly, in a state with a healthy democracy, the people have power in the form of elections. Politicians cannot anger the people because them remaining in power hinges on the people’s want for them to remain in power. But in under an authoritarian leader, since the leader has amassed all the power, the people matter very little. Government funds are corrupted by the leader and his cronies so the people are left fending for themselves as they suffer in a failing economy and amidst human rights violations.