When tough guys finish first

It’s disturbing to see controversial figures of questionable background being elected to lead their countries. Following the rise of Rodrigo Duterte in the Philippines this past summer, now we have Donald Trump as president-elect of the United States.
Most observers have blamed anger among the electorate towards the elite establishment for the victories of candidates like Duterte and Trump. The consensus is that voters want to see change at any cost. They’re willing to place their hope in contenders of dubious character because their proposed solutions to perceived problems sound effective in their very extremeness. In America’s case there is widespread concern about illegal immigrants, Muslim visitors, abortion and gay marriage. In the Philippines it’s mainly the scourge of illegal drug abuse. Citizens fretting over personal finances and social upheavals are willing to trust leadership candidates who vow to make their worries go away, even if it requires radical, unconstitutional measures. 
Trump, criticised throughout his campaign for espousing racist and sexist attitudes, has in the wake of his triumph toned down some of his more extreme campaign pledges. That massive wall along the Mexican border might not be so massive, or it might not be built at all, the notion replaced by talk of firmer policing measures to block illegal entry. Nor are his proposed ban on Muslims entering the United States and his promise to bar same-sex marriage likely to be realised. It remains to be seen how Trump’s hard-right supporters react to his backtracking.
Duterte wasted no time delivering on his campaign promise to cleanse the Philippines of drug abusers and dealers. A “war on drugs” commenced immediately after his June election and to date more than 4,000 people have been killed extra-judicially on the basis of suspicion alone. It’s an inhumane and horrific way to administer justice, and it will not rid the country of illicit drugs, but opinion polls show the public overwhelmingly backs its tough-guy president.
One of the more important questions now being discussed is whether winning an election is a mandate to do what’s morally or ethically wrong, even if it’s not overtly illegal or unconstitutional.
Loud denunciations of Duterte’s brutal drug war from the US government under Barack Obama did nothing to blunt the Philippine leader’s high approval ratings. In fact snubbing the big-brother powers, even when they appeal to morality, is likely to earn a badge of honour for national leaders engaged in questionable practices. Former Thai prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra famously dismissed an international outcry over his own popular war on drugs with the words, “The UN is not my father.” Around 2,000 people were summarily executed in that vile undertaking, many of them subsequently deemed innocent of any drug crime.
There are sound laws in place to deal with dope pushers, and other laws to deal with politicians who subvert moral values, condone irregularities or violate the rules themselves under the shield of electoral mandate. Occasionally penalised in court, the politicians insist they’ve been treated unfairly and encourage their supporters to protest against the verdict. They are just as quick, however, to take their critics to court on charges such as defamation.
Is the world witnessing a decline in good conscience among its electors and leaders, in the ability to tell right from wrong? Are we evolving into societies of people who can no longer feel shame at behaving immorally? It would seem so, at least for the majorities in some constituencies, since there’s no denying that we get the leaders we deserve. 
But it’s the mean spirit and power-lust of politicians that polarises nations, and that in turn leaves voters with stark, limited and often ugly choices.