Carlos P. Romulo backed authoritarianism

THE revered Carlos P. Romulo, the Philippines’ most well-known statesman, believed that authoritarianism was good for the nation. This is according to declassified documents from the US State Department on the Philippines, which gave us a clearer picture of the much-maligned Marcos administration.

A report from the US Embassy in Manila dated September 15, 1972, just a few days before martial law was declared in the country, noted a speech given by Romulo, which praised the economic progress made by South Korea under its dictator-president Park Chung Hee.

Romulo, the first Asian and only Filipino to become president of the United Nations General Assembly and the UN Security Council, was Ferdinand Marcos’ foreign affairs minister from 1968 to 1984.

US Ambassador to the Philippines Henry A. Byroade was shocked by Romulo’s statements that were complimentary of South Korea’s progress while putting that of the Philippines – whose liberal government was patterned after the United States very own – in a very unfavorable light.

“(Romulo) concluded that under the present system of ‘complete democracy’, the Philippines would never be able to keep pace with their Asian neighbors,” Byroade said. At that time, Park was spearheading the export-led growth of South Korea amid criticisms that his authoritarian rule came with limitations on personal freedoms.

Byroade also related how Romulo came to him, put his hand on his shoulder to say, “Your brand of democracy clearly cannot get the Philippines out of its dilemmas and start her on the road to real progress.”

Romulo explained the American system of government was for developed countries, and that developing countries such as the Philippines could not afford this luxury. The US ambassador countered that their brand of democracy worked best while still in the process of development.

But Romulo, according to Byroade, said that Filipinos were different and that they “would never get out of their deterioration without a very strong hand to take them out.”

As political events after 1972 have clearly shown, Romulo’s analysis was correct. The Philippines today is still struggling to achieve sustained growth and higher levels of income distribution despite the existence of U.S.-styled democratic institutions. The presidential form of government is a stark example of these colonial remnants that need urgent updating if we are to catch up with the rest of the world.

About 21 percent of the country’s population is still poor, and although this is lower than the 25.2 percent recorded in 2012, the elite – who have no great love for the Philippines, having adopted second foreign citizenships – still control bulk of the wealth and political power.

At the time Romulo made his remarks, the Four Asian Dragons were starting to emerge to become the newly industrialized countries in Asia. These were Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan. All four countries were led by dictators or authoritarian rulers, or by one-party governments.

Hong Kong was a British Crown colony led by a foreign governor until 1997; Singapore had its strongman leader, Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew , from 1959-1990; South Korea had its dictator Park; and Taiwan was ruled by the Kuomintang party since 1949. The four grew to become rich economies because of – not in spite of – the tight grip of their strong governments on economic policies and political freedoms.

Other countries in Asia would follow this pattern of having strong states deciding which policies would best usher in economic growth, and benefit the most people. Even the World Bank has had to acknowledge that state policies, such as lowered loan rates to specific export industries, had a big impact on development.

The strong governments in Asia have also wisely decided that strategic industries such as power and telecommunications should be controlled by the state in order to keep the prices down, boost business and industry, and protect the people’s interests.

In our country, authoritarianism has been reviled to such an extent that even the mere exercise of state power to subdue terrorists in Marawi City has become subject to criticism. President Rodrigo Duterte has been called a dictator for declaring martial law in Mindanao despite the threat of the jihadist ISIS taking over a city in Mindanao.

Even reemerging nationalism in the Philippines is being maligned by those seeking to keep the status quo, calling the rediscovered love of country “nativism,” “populism,” or, worse, “xenophobia.” All the industrialized economies in Asia are known for the strong nationalism of their people.

The criticisms against the Asian Dragons by liberals were focused on the supposed lack of political freedoms of the people. But as the Asian economies grew stronger and their people became better educated, more freedoms were extended. In the Philippines, we have the reverse situation where we got all the political freedoms, but the socio-economic and political structure dominated by the elite remained the same.

Filipinos have all the political freedoms to rally in the streets, to burn effigies, and to make false claims against national leaders. But these freedoms have not lifted millions of people out of poverty. That requires strong economic policies and even stronger political will, the “strong hand” that Romulo advocated 45 years ago.