The former Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte often gets lumped together with the former U.S. president Donald Trump on the basis of their autocratic practices. However, there are crucial differences in their respective situations and the reception of their autocratic practices on the ground. Consequently, if we understand Duterte only through Trump or with reference to the category of “emerging autocrat” then we end up misunderstanding the situation in the Philippines. This article is about the limits and pitfalls of thin comparison and the necessity of thicker ones. It advocates understanding practices embedded in the social structures and processes that make them meaningful. I proceed as follows: I present the case of Rodrigo Duterte and review the grounds for lumping him along with Trump as an emerging autocrat. I then pursue a thicker comparison of Duterte and Trump, putting their support in economic, social, political, and historical context and highlighting substantial differences in their respective situations. Finally, I argue that thin comparisons are especially susceptible to interpretive biases in general and highlight three such biases—toward contemporaneity, continuity, and centrality—using the case of Duterte to illustrate.
AlstonP. (2008). Report of the special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary executions in the Philippines. Human Rights Council. United Nations General Assembly.
6.
ArugayA. A. (2017). The Philippines in 2016: The electoral earthquake and its aftershocks. Southeast Asian Affairs, 2017, 277–296.
7.
ArguellesC. V. (2019). “We are Rodrigo Duterte”: Dimensions of the Philippine populist publics’ vote. Asian Politics and Policy, 11(3), 417–437.
8.
ArguellesC. V. (2021). The populist brand is crisis: Durable Dutertismo amidst mismanaged COVID-19 response. Southeast Asian Affairs, 2021, 257–274.
9.
BaldwinC.MarshallA. R. C. (2017, December19). How a secretive police squad racked up kills in Duterte’s drug war. Reuters.
10.
BasquialJ. K. A.ArugayA. A. (2023). The Philippines in 2022: The “Dance” of dynasties. Southeast Asian Affairs, 2023, 235–253.
11.
BerehulakD. (2016, December7). “They Are Slaughtering Us like Animals”: Inside president Duterte’s brutal drug campaign in the Philippines. New York Times.
12.
CabanesJ. V. A.CornelioJ. S. (2017). The rise of trolls in the Philippines (and what we can do about it). In CuratoN. (Ed.), A Duterte reader: Critical essays on Rodrigo Duterte’s early presidency (pp. 231–250). Ateneo de Manila University Press.
13.
CookM. (2021). The Philippines in 2020: Continuity despite crisis. Southeast Asian Affairs, 2021, 237–256.
14.
CoronelS. S. (2017). Murder as enterprise: Police profiteering in Duterte’s war on drugs. In CuratoN. (Ed.), A Duterte reader: Critical essays on Rodrigo Duterte’s early presidency (pp. 167–198). Ateneo de Manila University Press.
15.
CramerK. J. (2016). The politics of resentment: Rural consciousness in Wisconsin and the rise of Scott Walker. University of Chicago Press.
16.
CuratoN. (2016). Politics of anxiety, politics of hope: Penal populism and Duterte’s rise to power. Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs, 35(3), 91–109.
17.
Davao Today. (2005a, November6). Rody’s war.
18.
Davao Today. (2005b, November6). The rise and rise of Rodrigo Duterte.
DucanesG. M.RoodS.TignoJ. (2023). Identity, policy satisfaction, perceived character: What factors explain president Duterte’s popularity? (Working Paper No. 2023-05). Ateneo Center for Economic Research and Development. Ateneo de Manila University.
GarridoM. (2021a). Democracy as disorder: Institutionalized sources of democratic disenchantment among the middle class in Metro Manila. Social Forces, 99(3), 1036–1059.
23.
GarridoM. (2021b). Disciplining democracy: How the middle class in Metro Manila envision democratic order. Qualitative Sociology, 44(3), 419–435.
24.
GarridoM. (2021c). The ground for the illiberal turn in the Philippines. Democratization, 29(4), 673–691.
25.
GeertzC. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. Basic Books.
26.
GutierrezJ. (2016, August2). Body count rises as Philippine president wages war on drugs. New York Times.
27.
HickenA. (2018). The political party system. In ThompsonM. R.BatallaE. V. C. (Eds.), Routledge handbook of the contemporary Philippines (pp. 38–54). Routledge.
28.
HochschildA. R. (2016). Strangers in their own land: Anger and mourning on the American right. The New Press.
KreuzerP. (2016). “IF They Resist, Kill Them All”: Police vigilantism in the Philippines (PRIF Report no. 142). Peace Research Institute Frankfurt.
31.
KreuzerP. (2020). A patron-strongman who delivers: Explaining enduring public support for president Duterte in the Philippines (PRIF Report 1/2020). Peace Research Institute Frankfurt.
32.
KusakaW. (2017). Bandit grabbed the state: Duterte’s moral politics. Philippine Sociological Review, 65, 49–75.
33.
LevitskyS.ZiblattD. (2018). How democracies die. Penguin Random House.
34.
McVeighR.EstepK. (2019). The politics of losing: Trump, the Klan, and the mainstreaming of resentment. Columbia University Press.
35.
MilanovicB. (2016). Global inequality: A new approach for the age of globalization. Belknap Press.
36.
PeelM. (2017, February2). Drugs and death in Davao: The making of Rodrigo Duterte. Financial Times.
Pulse Asia. (2020). Nationwide survey on the national administration and the president’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. Pulse Asia Research, Inc.
40.
PutnamR. D. (2020). The upswing: How America came together a century ago and how we can do it again. Simon and Schuster.
41.
QuimpoN. G. (2017). Duterte’s “War on Drugs”: The securitization of illegal drugs and the return of national boss rule. In CuratoN. (Ed.), A Duterte reader: Critical essays on Rodrigo Duterte’s early presidency (pp. 145–166). Ateneo de Manila University Press.
42.
SchmitterP. C. (2015). Crisis and transition, but not decline. Journal of Democracy, 26(1), 39–57.
43.
Social Weather Stations. (2016). 2016 Exit Poll.
44.
Social Weather Stations. (2017). Government campaign against illegal drugs. The 2017 SWS Survey Review.
45.
Social Weather Stations. (2019a). Net satisfaction with anti-illegal drugs campaign at Excellent +70. Social Weather Survey, Second Quarter.
46.
Social Weather Stations. (2019b). 76% see many human rights abuses in the administration’s war on illegal drugs. Social Weather Survey, Fourth Quarter.
47.
Social Weather Stations. (2022a). President Rodrigo Duterte’s final net satisfaction rating at +81. Social Weather Survey, Second Quarter.
48.
Social Weather Stations. (2022b). Crime victimization and public safety. The 2022 SWS Survey Review.
49.
Social Weather Stations. (2023). Satisfaction with the way democracy works. The 2023 SWS Survey Review.
50.
ThompsonM. R. (2016). Bloodied democracy: Duterte and the death of liberal reformism in the Philippines. Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs, 35(3), 39–68.
51.
WilliamsS. (2017, January4). Rodrigo Duterte’s army of online trolls. New Republic.
52.
WuthnowR. (2018). The left behind: Decline and rage in small-town America. Princeton University Press.
