The Dictator’s Handbook

For a contemporary work to be considered a rival to a classic speaks a lot about how good it must be. Even more so when compared to the 16th-century political treatise written by Niccolo Machiavelli himself. I must admit that I cannot help but agree with Diana Coyle for setting Machiavelli’s work the standard for ‘The Dictator’s Handbook: Why Bad Behavior is Almost Always Good Politics’ by Bruce Bueno de Mesquita and Alastair Smith. Both these political scientists fill in the gaps of history’s legendary political thinkers such as Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes, Montesquieu, and James Madison. All of whom fell short to momentary circumstances. As is the case with these old thinkers, de Mesquita and Smith do not intend to give the ‘what ought to be done. Their work doesn’t aim to push immorality in the political realm even further. Their goal is to show how it works as it really is. So, it is quite normal to find yourself in conflict with their ideas but at the same time convincing.

de Mesquita and Smith erase the line between the Democrats and the autocrats. However, the line that we know is but a fiction that creates convenience – nonetheless, it remains a fantasy, an invention, a lie. They are not in opposition. It just so happens that they have different numbers of winning coalition (or essential supporters) that they need to feed to keep themselves in power. In comparison to the Democrats who have a huge number of hungry mouths to feed, the autocrats remain seated in the position for a longer period because they have a smaller winning coalition.

With this, de Mesquita and Smith presented the case of our very own dictator in a different light. The People Power Revolution was a defining moment in ousting Ferdinand Marcos, but there was more to it than meets the eye. Marcos’ winning coalition, which included the likes of US President Ronald Reagan and the national military, saw that Marcos would no longer be able to maintain their alliance due to his deteriorating health brought about by lupus. The autocrats know that their focus must be on the military believing that their support is crucial. Without their support, the populace may easily rid themselves of their ruler whenever they please. This is true in Marcos’s case when Defense Minister Juan Ponce Enrile and AFP Chief-of-Staff Fidel Ramos encouraged their fellow soldiers to side with the people.

For the longest time, you may have been thinking that the Democrats are angels and that the autocrats are evil. However, this book will make you rethink all of that and will begin to see things in a different light. When they tell you that their platforms are for the public good, what they really mean is that it is for the good of their coalition resulting in over taxation, unjust extraction, borrowing, and foreign aid going to these leaders for their own personal resources. Moreover, leaders take advantage of high infant mortality, lack of access to potable water, infrastructural development, and earthquake casualties to hinder the power that the people have over them.

This is one of those books that you would not need to have a degree in political science to understand what is going on. de Mesquita and Smith see to it that political jargons are explained thoroughly. Another good thing about this book is that, unlike other books on tyranny and on politics, in general, it doesn’t focus only on the Western context. They try to be as all-encompassing as they can – but, of course, still with limitations – by including those in Africa and in Asia.

My only qualm, however, is that throughout their eighteen years’ worth of research, the authors worked with only one claim in mind: power is the ONLY thing leaders crave for. Their work revolves around the assumption that everything a leader does, is solely for their own political gain. This theory-ladenness takes away the fact that leaders differ from one another. They work with different aims using different means for different purposes.