Macho populists versus COVID: Comparing political masculinities

Abstract

This article uses a feminist lens to examine Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte and former United States President Donald Trump’s responses to COVID-19. It argues that both populist leaders mobilised masculinity as a resource in statecraft. Both initially responded to the pandemic with dismissiveness and denialism. For the rest of his term, Trump diminished the harms of COVID and emphasised ‘protecting the economy’. Duterte, however, eventually embraced the fear of COVID, imposed a strict lockdown, and secured emergency powers. This article first analyses differences in the masculinities the two politicians performed. It then explores how this performance of masculinity contributed to structuring public discourses in relation to the pandemic and situates it in neoliberal governance more broadly. For example, the performance of invincibility constructed others’ vulnerability and illness as an individual weakness rather than socially and relationally produced. Trump’s co-optation of the language of freedom encouraged protests against health measures and positioned medical experts as the ‘real threat’. In contrast, Duterte’s securitised approach made it difficult for citizens to protest repressive laws enacted by his government. Duterte’s ‘war on COVID’ was marked by his demand for obedience and discipline, thereby constituting anyone who questioned the harmful effects of a police-led lockdown as a threat to national security. Finally, the article reflects on the ways China’s growing role in global politics affects notions and practices of populist masculinities. Both leaders flexed diplomatic masculinity differently in relation to China: Duterte touted his personal closeness to China as a path to securing resources for the Philippines, while Trump’s vilification of China constructed COVID as a ‘foreign enemy’ as opposed to a crisis he was responsible for. Ultimately, these masculine responses undermined dissent and centred muscularity, either in the form of individual resilience or securitisation and policing, as the solution to the pandemic.

Brute Force Governance: Public Approval Despite Policy Failure During the COVID-19 Pandemic in the Philippines

“…Populist leaders such as Brazil's Bolsonaro and the U.S.'s Trump are the most obvious examples of medical populist efforts to simplify the pandemic by downplaying its severity and offering easy (quack) solutions while deepening the divisions by promising to protect the “good” people from dangerous others (Hedges and Lasco, 2021; Lasco, 2020a). With the outbreak of COVID-19 in the early spring of 2020, both U.S. president Trump and his Brazilian counterpart Bolsonaro denied the severity of the pandemic (Parmanand, 2021). They both also prized their own physical virility and promised their respective populations that they would largely be immune to the pandemic (Parmanand, 2021).…”

“…With the outbreak of COVID-19 in the early spring of 2020, both U.S. president Trump and his Brazilian counterpart Bolsonaro denied the severity of the pandemic (Parmanand, 2021). They both also prized their own physical virility and promised their respective populations that they would largely be immune to the pandemic (Parmanand, 2021). Moreover, they often rejected or at least cast doubt on scientific advice offered from experts in their own governments, instead promoting unproven cures and discouraging social distancing and mask wearing.…”

“…As discussed above, Duterte was also initially a denialist, joking about the pandemic and saying Filipinos’ strong antibodies would make them highly resistant to the new virus. A “macho populist” like Bolsonaro and Trump, Duterte initially “stigmatised public concern and caution by characterising it as a hysterical overreaction” and “feminising” those warning of the dangers to public health (Parmanand, 2020, 2021). This was characteristic of the Philippine president who has often been openly misogynist, repeatedly telling rape jokes in public appearances which earned him international notoriety but have been widely interpreted in the Philippines as rejecting the hypocritical moralism of the previous administration in favour of a “crass” but more authentic politics (Abinales, 2015; Curato and Ong, 2018).…”

“…But, as discussed above, Duterte quickly pivoted away from pandemic denialism, no longer claiming he and the nation were invincible but instead implementing a drastic lockdown as the nation's “tough protector.” This, however, still allowed him to frame his response in macho populist terms (Parmanand, 2021). While Lasco (2020b) considers Duterte a “medical populist,” a crucial difference between the Philippine president, on the one hand and Bolsonaro and Trump, on the other, is that the Philippine president quickly transitioned from denying the severity of the pandemic to adopting a harsh lockdown strategy.…”

“…Playing to their political bases, Trump and Bolsonaro instrumentalised a libertarian discourse and projected an image of invincibility. Duterte, by contrast, “shapeshifted” from “the invincible man” who did not fear COVID-19 to his nation's “tough protector” in the fight against it (Parmanand, 2021).…”