When History Repeats: Infamous Leaders - Pt.1

    Hello, and thanks for stopping by. This is the next installment of what has now become a multi-part series of articles about rhythm and rhyme between history and the present day, partially out of personal interest, but more so in the hopes of being able to digest this general era of bad feelings a little more palatably. Since I've exhausted everyone's favourite conversation topic, the Covid-19 pandemic & its similarities to the 1918-20 Spanish flu, I've chosen to move on to the second most agreeable and uncontroversial subject; politics and national leaders. Given that 2020 and the short time following it has been rife with accusations of tyranny, incompetence and radicalism, I'll be examining some cases from history that highlight several truly notorious world leaders, as well as the tactics and decisions that earned them their well-deserved reputations. If you wish to, you can skip my thoughtful and clearly biased prologue, shown in italics. However, it is an advisory for a reason, I will not be held responsible for pain caused by irritated cognitive dissonance.

    One of the most fascinating things about history is the way it ebbs and flows with time. New ideas challenge the old way of things, ideologies struggle against one another, and the constantly evolving and interconnected plot line of people and places. Some of the most memorable figures in history are the leaders; The ingenious generals, the influential religious figureheads, kings, queens, emperors, and sultans that not only catch our attention but deeply affect the piece of the world over which they reign. We recognize and revere their accomplishments and legacies; immortalized in literature, theatre, film and video game. Even to those who hold little interest in the subject, many of us will recognize names of notable figures due to their influence on the world. Much more interesting to us are the bad leaders: scandalous stories of the corrupt, the incompetent, the deceitful, the malevolent, or the generally infamous. Such are the leaders who earn an everlasting reputation as national embarrassments that seem out of the storyline of a comic book or B-list movie rather than real life, who often inspire fictional villains in some of our more well known pieces of historical fiction. 

    What are we to do though, when we feel as though our own leaders are unworthy of their position at the helm of our country? Making an accurate assessment is difficult enough with the tsunami of infotainment, misinformation and inherent bias when it comes to politics. Many modern news sources now include a handy feature where they do most of the critical thinking for you. Alternatively, history can provide some foresight and perspective not only as to whether your country is badly run, but what truly constitutes bad. 

    Time is said to be the toughest judge, the fairest teacher, and a great number of other vague and forgettable things, but it certainly gives enough time to relax, collect our thoughts, listen closely and understand something that in the moment felt like a hurricane of hot bullsh*t. So what really makes a truly terrible leader? We know that bad behaviour comes in many forms. Whether it be speeding through a school zone, lying on your taxes, or selling government secrets to the Soviet Union for cash, regular folks like you or I may find ourselves facing a day in court when caught on the wrong side of the law. 

    For those who write the law however, things are a little more complicated. Anywhere that leadership is needed, there exist positions of authority that are enshrined with power and responsibilities needed get the job done: Whether it be to write parking tickets to the owner of large Buick blocking a fire hydrant, to enacting new laws that govern a nation. As we know from experience, responsibilities can be thrown to the wind and power used instead for biased, enriching, or tyrannical ends. Just as a teacher's authority should be used for education and positive reinforcement, they could hypothetically choose to use their position for self-interested ends: neglect the curriculum and later 'cook' the mark books, embezzle field trip money for their liquor store fund, or use personal sick days to travel to a Caribbean destination and teach online from an all-inclusive resort. 

Note: These actions are neither ones I perform nor endorse. All creative rights are credited to the teachers whose behaviours occupy the final pages of the OCT magazine. 

Similarly, those in power can abuse their office for dishonest or fraudulent purposes. We broadly define it as corruption, but this isn't necessarily helpful. Would I be corrupt by taking the last package of cheese & crackers from the class's nutrition bin at day's end? Would lying to my dentist about my supremely poor flossing habits merit the term fraudulent? Would immoral actions committed within the bounds of the law be rinsed of any criminal association? To help identify the grey areas within the spectrum of corruption, here are some specific definitions and notable examples for each type of unscrupulous action:

• Graft: Improper use of authority, usually for personal gain (single)
• Former Vice President Spiro Agnew, VP to Richard Nixon. Agnew had shown favouritism to engineering firms for the construction and maintenance of the state's road projects in exchange for regular "campaign donations" which continued into his tenure as VP. With the White House already embroiled in the developing Watergate Investigation and growing talks of impeachment proceedings, Agnew resigned from office in October 1973 and pleaded "no contest" to the charges, paying $10,000 in fines and receiving three years of unsupervised probation. 
• Influence Peddling: Trading one's influence, usually to seek personal gain (systematic)
• Former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich was convicted of corruption after investigations revealed numerous "pay to play" schemes conducted as governor, seeking money or other payments in exchange for legislative authorizations, vetoes, and gubernatorial appointments, most notably being the state's recently vacated Senate seat. Initially sentenced to 14 years imprisonment, Blagojevich served 8 years in custody until his sentence was commuted by President Trump in 2020. 
• Embezzlement: The withholding of entrusted assets to be converted or used for inappropriate purposes
• Former Alberta Premier Alison Redford, who billed the province numerous unrelated expenses during her time in office, including a multi-nation "trade mission" with family members, personal assistants and a nanny, generous salaries and severance packages for staff and friends, and a multi-million dollar apartment suite humbly nicknamed "Skypalace".  Redford resigned from the premiership and was conspicuously absent from the Alberta legislature, presumably to take time to reflect on her less-than-impeccable judgement. No charges were filed. 
• Bribery: Giving, offering or receiving payments to influence the actions of an official of duty.
• Former South Korean president Lee Myung-Bak was found guilty of bribery and other crimes from accepting bribes from a variety of sources and channeling assets into an illegal slush fund. Notably, he was convicted of accepting nearly $6 million bribes from the Samsung corporation in exchange for a presidential pardon for company chairman Lee Kun-hee. Lee was sentenced to 15 years imprisonment in October 2018. 
• Cronyism, Nepotism: Awarding jobs or advantages to friends/family/allies
• Numerous stories of the Princelings, a term coined in the early 20th century to describe the kin of prominent Chinese officials that utilize their parent's privilege to obtain influential positions for themselves. 

    Other criminal acts can also be considered corrupt if committed through the use of official authority or political influence; such as perjury, obstruction of justice, or suppression of dissent.

    While this was initially going to be a widely-scoped piece touching on each subject, two problems soon presented themselves. First was the fact that not all infamous leaders "broke the law", many committed their acts using the law or federal prerogative to legitimize them and as such, while certainly having negative outcomes, were not technically illegal. The other obstacle was a surplus of choice, with a plethora of examples to choose from. Ultimately, the aim of this article (and the others to come) is to explore a single individual who best embodies one of the aforementioned crimes and summarize their tenure; questionable qualities,  dubious decisions, their fall from grace, and examine the clear and measurable damage they did to their country in the process. 

AUTHOR’S ADVISORY: The following article contains high concentrations of facts, evidence, and truthful material. Details may be unpopular, uncomfortable, or unsettling to some readers. Ingestion of content may cause: Disbelief, trouble sleeping, open-mindedness, and irritation of the ignoramus gland. Do not operate heavy machinery. Do not consume with partisanship or other political cocktails. If you find your symptoms persist, please consult your bubble for further pseudo-professional advice. 

Kleptocracy: A National Case of Sticky Fingers

    While embezzlement is the equivalent of "Stealing for Dummies", the top level of politically-enabled pocket-lining is most certainly Kleptocracy. "Rule by Thieves" is used to describe a government whose highest officials make it common practice to use the national treasury as a piggy bank for personal expenses or secret retirement accounts. In this way, tremendous sums of money inflate national overhead costs or evaporate sources of income as cabinet members, presidential family members and political allies conspicuously grow ever-wealthier than their stipulated salaries would provide. Circumstances such as direct oversight of valuable resources or industries, a blank cheque in foreign aid from a Cold War superpower, or a lack of checks and balances of governmental power all increase the risk of kleptocracy and other corrupt tendencies. In almost all cases, the more authoritarian a country is, the more that top leaders are free act without fear of consequences, and in some cases they take this opportunity to the extreme...

    Enter former Filipino President Ferdinand Marcos, who holds the distinction of being one of the most insidious kleptocrats of the 20th century. Marcos campaigned for the presidency on his record as the nation's most decorated war hero (which was later revealed to be a complete fiction, despite Marcos's efforts to manufacture medals & commendations afterwards). His victory in the 1965 election even garnered the praise of Time magazine for his "dynamic, selfless leadership". Trustworthy words from a magazine with a long and spotless history of making smart and well-informed decisions that age like wine.

    At the time, the Philippines was one of the few democracies in Southeast Asia with a steadily-growing economy, the second-largest in Asia after Japan. The country was also considered much more politically stable than others in the region: The nation had gained its independence from U.S. control in 1946 and developed its own democratic constitution, and while nearby countries were enduring major insurgencies or civil wars, rebellions and antigovernmental actions at home had declined sharply after World War 2.

    As president, Marcos spent vast sums of money on infrastructure projects, aligning himself with a new generation of industrialists, bankers, and developers to build a powerful political alliance. While the Philippines saw the greatest growth in paved roads, railways, highways, bridges and other infrastructure, questions arose as public works contracts were awarded exclusively to Marcos allies with increasingly inflated price tags. Simultaneously, he quickly expanded the armed forces, appointing loyal military staff to oversee public offices. This expanded military influence over the civilian government to the point that politicians warned the country was becoming a "garrison state". 

    Running for re-election in 1969, Marcos announced a massive expansion of his previous initiatives, winning the election while depleting the nation's treasury through enormous deficit spending. Dependence on loans and 'mismanagement' of foreign aid caused the value of the Philippine peso to collapse, forcing the country into a balance of payment crisis: driving up the price of domestic products and making imports nearly unaffordable. Later called the 'First Quarter Storm, widespread public dissent and a formal investigation into presidential misconduct began to put pressure on the president's office to respond to the crisis. It was under these circumstances that Marcos began his dictatorial shift: bribing members of the investigating committee, suspending the writ of hebeas corpus (effectively allowing police forces to detain citizens indefinitely without trial or access to legal resources), and violently cracking down on protest movements across the country. Into the early 1970s, Marcos continued to strengthen his grip on the government as his second term was nearing its mandated limit. His most significant power grab was in 1972 when, responding to a series of bombings in the capital city of Manila, he suspended the Filipino constitution, disbanded congress (and by proxy, the intergovernmental investigation), and declared martial law. While the president's office blamed Communist insurgents for the attacks, declassified CIA evidence released in the 1990s linked many of the bombings to the Philippine constabulary and members of the Marcos regime. 

Senators locked out of Congress 

    With the checks and balances of democracy swept aside, the president consolidated power at an accelerating rate, effectively ruling the Philippines as a military dictatorship for the next 14 years. This new period of the regime involved a tightened control of the press, a purge of opposition officials from office, imprisonment of dissidents, and worsening series of human rights abuses. Widespread and unlawful arrests became common, upwards of 70,000 people were abducted during this time, most often by "Constabulary Security Units". These units were also responsible for gross mistreatment and torture of detainees, using a variety of cruel methods to extract forced confessions or the names of alleged co-conspirators. Forced disappearances and public killings of prominent citizens were also common, such as the disappearance of former government minister & dissident author Primitivo Mijares, and the assassination of pro-democratic politician, Benigno Aquino Jr.  These "salvagings" (from the spanish word for savage) were labelled as such because victims' bodies were dumped in public places with clear evidence of torture. A unique quality of the Marcos regime, these methods of repression and murder were meant to send a clear message to those who spoke out against or resisted the government. 

Protesters seeking cover from police crackdowns in a Jeepney

    As the undisputed autocrat of the nation, little stood in the way of President Marcos using the country's wealth as he saw fit. It wasn't long before his family and their cronies earned a reputation for their wonton spending and luxurious lifestyle. New villas and palaces were commissioned across the country, extravagantly adorned with furniture, chandeliers, antiques, and precious art. Over 100 rare or priceless paintings were purchased, gaudily framed in gold leaf quickly overcrowded palace walls. Literal tons of wildlife were purchased from Kenya to simulate an African safari as a novel piece of presidential entertainment, forcing the displacement of the 250 Calauit residents to make room for the artificial ecosystem, where giraffes, zebras, and orangutans still exist to this day. Such was the complicity of Filipino First Lady Imelda Marcos that the regime was dubbed the 'conjugal dictatorship'. Known to spend upwards of $3 million per shopping trip, Imelda accumulated a titanic trove of clothing, jewelry, art, and other treasures, including a collection of 15 mink coats, 508 gowns, 888 handbags, hundreds of pieces of jewelry and thousands of pairs of shoes that were found in the presidential palace alone. Her stash of accessories and precious stones was so great that it took years to track down and compile. Today, the 'Marcos Jewels' are referred to in three separate collections, each pertaining to the circumstances they were uncovered by Filipino judicial authorities.

 

Pieces from one of three captured jewelry collections

    Described as having an 'ediface complex', Imelda Marcos was the force behind much of the ostentatious development of the regime. She organized a large portion of the government's civil projects through the 1970s and 80s, and was closely involved in the design and construction modest domain of mansions, villas, and residences for the family. Over 50 properties were built or purchased for the Marcos family across the Philippines, requiring figures in the millions in annual upkeep alone. 

The lavish interior of one of the Marcos mansions

    Later investigation discovered that through the use of proxies and pseudonyms, national treasury funds had been used to amass an empire of real estate with assets in London, Rome, Singapore, Vienna, Australia, the Netherlands, Israel, South Africa, and Switzerland. In the United States, mansions, commercial buildings and vast swaths of land were  purchased in California, Hawaii, Texas, Washington, New Jersey, plus 4 skyscrapers and 6 residential properties in New York. 

Now Trump Tower, 40 Wall St was one of four New York City skyscrapers owned by the Marcos family

    Ostentatious spending habits aside, the most elusive assets were those that were never drawn from or traded. In the final years of the regime, the Marcos family focused their efforts on amassing their liquid assets outside their home country. Later uncovered were slush fund accounts in Switzerland, Japan, and New York City under known Marcos pseudonyms, records showing a long list of six-figure cash deposits, some dating back to as early as 1960. Never claiming such income or assets at the time, it suggests that Marcos was managing large sums of questionably-obtained money well before his presidency began. Even the emergency reserves of the national bank were not safe, as later reports would reveal an absence of 6.325 metric tons of gold bullion from strategic reserves, as well as approximately $800 million worth of silver, bonds, cash and other assets that would be found in security deposit lockers in European banks, despite the country sinking ever-deeper into debt. There still exist other untouched Panamanian accounts valued in the millions that continue to earn their owners millions in capital gains returns. 

    Ultimately, such were their sticky fingers that they still hold the 'Greatest Robbery of a Government' by the Guinness Book of World Records; conservative estimates place the value of the theft between $5 - $17.1 billion US dollars ($11-$40 billion in today's money), or roughly half of the entire wealth of the country as measured in GDP. To think that all this was accomplished despite Marco's modest presidential salary of $13,500 per year would be more than just a feat of frugal spending and wise investments. 

The Marcos family 

    Further into the 1980s, the worsening debt crisis eroded the quality of life in the country. The country's GDP and economy shrank for three consecutive years, as poverty, oppression and underemployment became pervasive. Such wealth disparity was highlighted during a papal visit when, in a public statement in the presence of Marcos himself, Pope John Paul II criticized the government's neglect of human rights under the guise of security, and refused to stay at the Marcos's Coconut Palace, citing the lavishness of the ruling family while citizens lived in squalor.

    As the domestic situation worsened, Marcos attempted to alleviate pressure by calling a snap election in February 1986, one that would be wrought with irregularities and accusations of tampering. During the counting process, election officials and computer programmers staged a walk-out in protest the manipulation of the results. Despite international observers reporting vote-buying, intimidation, snatching of ballot boxes, and voter disenfranchisement, Marcos was declared the winner. Prominent public figures who criticized the election's integrity were kidnapped or publicly killed, and protests spread across the country in the following days. Seeing the writing on the wall, cabinet ministers and the regime's closest allies distanced themselves from the Marcos family, most notably with the resignations of the defense minister and chief of national police. This left the family without the means to put down the public demonstrations or even leave the guarded grounds of the palace. Under pressure from the U.S. government, the Marcos family hastily collected their treasures and escaped to Hawaii. Their arrival at the Honolulu airport included two cargo planes, loaded to capacity with 278 cargo crates and ~400 suitcases packed with cash, bonds, art, jewelry and solid gold bars, so vast that it required 23 full pages to complete the U.S. customs report. The now  ex-president, already in poor health throughout his final years in power, died in 1989 of kidney failure while the family planned their return to their home country. 

    Democracy returned to the Philippines, and with it the Presidential Commission on Good Governance was established to recover the ill-gotten wealth of the Marcos empire. The investigations and legal efforts continue to this day. Over 30 years later, the Philippines is still recovering from its period of poor leadership and financial mismanagement: Massive debt, underdevelopment, and a lack of job opportunities are such that many Filipinos work overseas to support their families at home. In 2019, incoming money transfers from the international Filipino diaspora accounted for almost ten percent of the country's yearly wealth. 

    As for the remaining family members, Imelda and her children returned to the Philippines in 1991. With financial support from undisclosed sources, she went on to successfully re-establish her family's prominence in politics. Despite the family's constant implication by domestic and international court cases and direct involvement in the nation's most repressive dictatorship, two of her children have burgeoning political careers and ambitions of their own, and at rallies are known for handing out cash to supporters while advocating for the return of strong leadership and denying history allegations of ill-gotten wealth as 'politically motivated lies'. The former First Lady, now 91, still collects a pension from her tenured public 'service' and continues to live out her days in luxury, adorned with jewelry, dressed in designer clothes, and surrounded by Picassos and Monets. 

The story of the Marcos family, regime, and aftermath is detailed in the documentary The Kingmaker, including interviews with former First Lady Imelda Marcos and her son and senator, Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos Jr. 

    While the history of the Marcos regime is especially egregious, it is not unique to many developing countries of the world. Abuse of power is always a possibility when mixing wealth and authority, and history has numerous examples of such circumstances taken to the extreme. In Indonesia, the Suharto family captured a massive sum of money by taking a share of almost every major public works project, natural resource industry (of which oil and rubber are in plentiful supply) and privatization initiative over the course of his 31 year rule. Some estimates allude to a total sum of US $35 billion in unlawful net worth. In the Congo (then called Zaire), president Mobutu Sese Seko assumed direct control over the nation through military takeover, directly embezzling foreign aid and awarding government positions to loyalists in exchange for generous kickbacks between 1965 and 1997. 

    In all cases, kleptocracy thrives where transparency and democracy are stifled. Even when exposed, wrongdoing is difficult to stop, and often impossible to reverse. Leaders dismiss evidence of their crimes as slander and political posturing while rallying behind their supporters. Even when out of office, some will obstruct the wheels of justice with years of court battles that outlast the lives of the defendants. 

    When leaders are able to censor the press, influence the justice system, or circumvent constitutional checks and balances of authority, corruption grows unfettered. In the last 30 years, Nigeria, Serbia, Peru, Nicaragua, Haiti, and Russia have suffered under and the subsequent instability that follows. History does not lack for empowered thieves. While infamous individuals come and go, the recipe for wrongdoing remains, and the future will produce more examples where transparency and accountability fail. 

    I hope you enjoyed this content. This original article grew in size and scope to a point that I had to break it into several parts. If you are interested, future installments of this 'Infamous Leaders' series will continue with sections on other topics, such as treason, incompetency, and other areas of blunder and maliciousness. If you have any input or responses, feel free to contact me directly or leave a comment below. Thanks again for stopping by.