Authoritarian followers

The Duterte Youth gained media mileage recently, in part due to the attention paid by mass and social media to the confrontation that artist Jim Paredes had with the group in an event commemorating the 31st year of the ouster of dictator Ferdinand Marcos.

For their troubles, nine of the Duterte Youth were given pins that made them members of the Republic Defenders, a civic group that self-identifies as “defenders of the Republic of the Philippines and President Rodrigo Duterte, his policies, programs that promote the general welfare of the Filipino people.”

Apparently the Republic Defenders is associated with the Office of the Solicitor General. It was Solicitor General Jose Calida himself who invited and presented the pins “because we are supporting them as part of the defender of the Republic of the Philippines.”

Unlike those who collectively categorize them as “Dutertards,” I think the Duterte Youth represents a distinctive segment of our population, the right-wing authoritarian (RWA) followers.

Various belief categories apply to those who throw their support to the President, among them those who see in him and his platform the possibility of genuine social change that benefits the many.

But I believe RWA followers pose a very harmful challenge. Retired professor of Psychology Robert Anthony “Bob” Altemeyer, in his book “The Authoritarians,” describes an RWA follower as “someone who, because of his personality, submits by leaps and bows to his authorities.”

That description does not seem particularly problematic except that Altemeyer also said that “followers submit too much to the leaders, trust them too much, and give them too much leeway to do whatever they want—which often is something undemocratic, tyrannical and brutal,” and that “authoritarian followers find it easier to bully, harass, punish, maim, torture, ’eliminate,’ ’liquidate,’ and ’exterminate’ their victims than most people do.”

Right-wing authoritarianism is not a political line but a personality profile characterized according to Altemeyer with 1) high degree of submission to the established, legitimate authorities in their society, 2) high levels of aggression in the name of their authorities, and 3) a high level of conventionalism.

The allegiance of those with high levels of RWA is not to a political ideology, not even to a leader, but to what I would call “The Establishment.”

Hence, there could be RWA followers among the political right, as well as the political left in situations where the latter has become the authority in place. Too, previous Philippine administrations had supporters who could be said to have high levels of RWA.

To be fair, Altemeyer raises the red flag against over generalizations, the prediction of individual behavior (e.g., assuming that a person with a degree of RWA will without doubt exhibit violent behavior), and the positioning of hard opposites.

But he provides compelling examples of the damage that high levels of right-wing authoritarianism does or can do to societies. (to be continued)--