Is authoritarianism ever good?

It can seem an attractive solution in crisis situations, but it’s not the best one

Former Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte appears before the judges of the International Criminal Court on March 14.

“This is what the king who will reign over you will do. … He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. Your servants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves.” —1 Samuel 8:11, 15–17

Recently, a man known for a no-nonsense, often ruthless approach to governing became his country’s president with strong Christian support, promising to restore law and order. He promptly took decisive action by mobilizing law enforcement, but with little respect for human rights. As a result, the basic freedoms of thousands of people were violated. However, many Christians continued to support the leader.

No, I’m not talking about Donald Trump. I refer to Rodrigo Duterte, who was president of the Philippines from 2016 to 2022. Duterte’s March 11 arrest on an International Criminal Court warrant has brought renewed attention to the consequences that ensue when authoritarian leadership overrides human rights protections.

When campaigning for the presidency, Duterte, who deployed a “death squad” to get rid of criminals while serving as mayor of Davao City, vowed to carry out a war on drugs. During his presidency, more than 6,000 Filipinos were killed in this “war,” according to official police statistics. Human rights groups claim the actual number of deaths may have been 30,000.

In the Philippines, a president may not run for reelection. In 2022, the country elected Ferdinand Marcos Jr. as president and Sara Duterte, Rodrigo’s daughter, as vice president. The relationship between the two has since degenerated into a bitter feud, leading to renewed cooperation between the Philippine government and the ICC and then to Rodrigo Duterte’s arrest. The former president, age 80, now awaits trial in the Hague, the Dutch city where the ICC has its headquarters. As Christianity Today reported two weeks ago, some Christians have rejoiced in the arrest while others still support Duterte.

Is authoritarian leadership ever good? The answer is not simple. When I was a congressional aide and observed up close the massive inefficiencies of US government, I thought an enlightened despot would be a better option. Unfortunately, despots are seldom enlightened. But they do sometimes seem to offer benefits.

An Iraqi native once told me that under Saddam Hussein’s brutal rule, the buses ran on time. A Malawian told me that the country’s civil service was more reliable under harsh autocrat Hastings Kamuzu Banda than it is today. Hungary’s current regime, widely viewed as autocratic, also supports religious freedom globally. El Salvador is no longer overrun by gangs as it was three years ago, but constitutional rights have been curtailed in the process.

In horrible situations where criminal elements dominate communities and even the police are powerless, the demand for strong countermeasures is understandable. But in general, desirable policy ends cannot justify authoritarian means. If you support arrest and detention without due process, you—or your friend who advocates peacefully for human rights for all—could be the person who gets arrested next week.

This is why, although Christians differ on many policy issues, they are in general agreement in their support for basic human rights.

The Bible does not explicitly call for political democracy, but it warns against the tendency of kings to rule in ways that do not benefit the people (e.g., 1 Samuel 8:10–18). One can also find an analogous call for checks and balances in the New Testament’s instruction on church government, which recommends the appointment of multiple elders rather than a single leader holding great authority.

Supporting the rule of law and due process while opposing authoritarianism is an important, though often risky, way to love our neighbor. How one applies these principles will vary depending on the setting. The long US tradition of respecting freedom of speech gives me greater opportunity—and responsibility—than Christians in Russia, China, or Nicaragua have. According to the Varieties of Democracy Project, the number of autocracies globally exceeds the number of democracies. Christians living under autocracies need God’s wisdom as to how to advocate prudently for freedom and justice in their own context.

If you’re waiting for me to attempt an application to the current situation in the United States, please come back next week.

Reader response: Pursuing peace in Ukraine

Last Wednesday’s post on peacemaking in Ukraine brought a passionate comment from Ruslan Maliuta, who has led efforts to provide humanitarian aid and support pastors in Ukraine for the past three years. I pointed out to Ruslan that Russia’s nuclear capacity and weakening US support make the present situation somewhat different from World War II. (My fear is that Ukraine could end up like South Vietnam, which fell to North Vietnam in 1975, three years after US forces withdrew.)

Ruslan responded as follows:

The point I’m trying to make is that Ukraine’s only real choice is between continuing to fight and giving up, because Russia regime’s goal is to destroy Ukraine as a free and independent nation. Whatever deal is reached, there won’t be any more ways to enforce the deal than there are now to stop Russia from waging the war in the first place. Russians might agree to some kind of a deal if they see it as something that would benefit them (e.g., a pause to rearm or restore their economy), but as soon as it stands in their way, the deal will be broken.

No one wants peace in Ukraine more than Ukrainians, but anybody who thinks that the way to peace is a deal with the current Russian regime is in delusion.

Ruslan accurately notes that without either trust or enforcement, a satisfactory negotiated solution is very difficult.