Being liked makes people happy. Being respected however is more important than being liked, and what matters more makes us happier. Respect is the foundation of good relationships; it is a given and need not be earned in some relationships. Everyone may not like us, but respect shows maturity and integrity in dealing with others no matter how they differ in opinions. That leads to unity in diversity. What if we ask leaders the question of “being liked or being respected”? We want a more respected and smarter answer.

Society these days needs to be people-focused, not leader-focused. True leaders know that when people are more empowered to help themselves, their leadership thrives. People need that sort of leadership training. Having a leader for a long time is not sustainable. A new leader is being trained and it is policy-based like implementing term limits.

What happens to many political leaders is that they launch covert and overt propaganda so that people will always like them. Netizens continue to criticize them through memes, half-meant jokes, and serious posts of sentiments on such leaders. When there is a palpable lack of respect for leaders, chances are they do not adjust their leadership style for the better but launch more and tougher propaganda for self-preservation. Those who oppose them will be considered enemies and will be subjected to black propaganda. (“Lening lutang” is one; the worst thing I have heard is that Filipinos will become even more stupid if she continues to be chosen as a leader.) Trolls are utilized and they usually succeed in terms of preserving their selfish interests.

But they cannot fool assiduous college students who are being exposed to social sciences and the humanities, some core courses of which have been learned in junior and senior high school. They understand that the good qualities of leaders cannot be compromised and there is no room for leaders who only want to be liked. They also abhor seeing such types of leaders when they join their chosen professions of medicine, engineering, business, accounting, and teaching, among others.

Adolf Hitler, Ferdinand Marcos Sr., and Rodrigo Duterte had their own controversial and complicated leadership. Looking at their terms, they have become figures with mixed reactions from the public—some supporters and some critics. The question of whether they were respectful throughout their terms depends on one’s perspective and interpretation, but there are clear aspects that describe their leadership.

The leader of the Nazi Party and Chancellor of Germany from 1933 to 1945, Hitler cannot be considered a respectable leader in history. He was responsible for starting World War II and the systematic killing of millions of Jews and other minorities under his Nazi ideology. His leadership was opposed and condemned worldwide for heinous human rights crimes, such as the Holocaust. His name has generally been associated with hatred and abuse, and disrespect has been inadvertently promoted in recent decades. (Britannica, n.d.) 

Marcos Sr. was the Philippine President from 1965 to 1986. During his first years in power, he had several economic achievements and built long-lasting infrastructures. But his decision to declare Martial Law in 1972 brought serious consequences for human rights, press freedom, and political democracy. Martial Law was used to tighten his power, impose punishments on opponents, and enrich his already Imeldific family and allies. Allegations of corruption and abuse of power became part of his legacy, including final convictions. Although he still has supporters (his son who is back in Malacañang also receives strong backing from “Marcos’ loyalists”) in some parts of the country, the violence caused by Martial Law and the issues of injustice and a massive amount of foreign debt gave his administration a bad reputation. (“The Transnational Dynamics of the Marcos Plunder,” Aquino, 1999; “Presidential Plunder: The Quest for the Marcos Ill-gotten Wealth,” Salonga, 2000; Amnesty International, 2022)

Another Filipino leader, Duterte, ruled for only six years but it was marked by controversial measures, including the brutal war on drugs that caused thousands of deaths. Although Duterte is proud of his populist style and his achievements in battling criminality, many Filipinos and other nationalities have also criticized him for allegedly violating human rights and having authoritarian tendencies. He has garnered significant support from supporters for his anti-drug policies, but his leadership style has come under fire from international human rights groups and political opponents. His language and statements are also sometimes controversial and do not correspond to the standards of diplomatic and political discipline, so respect for him varies depending on the person’s point of view. The Tokhang approach in his drug war has a notorious record and is not respectable either. An understatement? Here: “The war on drugs took away our dignity, we were stripped of our dignity (inalisan kami ng dignidad),” said Mary Ann Domingo, who lost her husband and son in 2016, relating how Tokhang-operating cops rushed into the privacy of their home and dragged them by force at the dead of night. (“Families of drug war victims demand justice during House EJK probe,” PNA, 2024)

Overall, the three leaders had aspects of leadership that received different reactions from their subordinates. Each of them has supporters and critics, but looking at the overall impact of their leadership, it is undeniable that they are NOT the most respected leaders in world history—especially because of the issues of human rights, freedom, and democratic governance.

If the leaders are men and women of integrity, they are likely to be liked and respected at the same time. We can hope and pray both ways.