The “great man theory” popularised by writer and historian Thomas Carlyle defined 19th century sociology. He posited that human history was merely play-dough for the whims of “supermen” — individuals blessed by the heavens from birth to rise up and single-handedly alter the trajectory of civilisation. Napoleon, Hitler, Lenin, you get the picture. Not everyone was a Carlyle fan, of course. Herbert Spencer, a noted polymath of the time, rubbished his “some are born to lead” narrative. He argued instead that great societies spawn great leaders, and not the other way around. Continuity is obviously key to such a system of government, both in defining and dispensing justice, and proliferating the ‘right’ truths about the human experience. As Spencer foretold, developed nations ranging from the US to Great Britain to Japan have all benefitted from erecting state institutions that serve continuity, and hence prosperity. Hubert and Carlyle epitomised the classic nature versus nurture debate. Then again, when you have Sparta, you get Leonidas. Nevertheless, there are flaws in both theories without which history would be far less than entertaining. To his mind, Carlyle’s “great man” was an unqualified hero who shaped for the better the lives of those around him. While this may be true for a certain class of people through a constrained stretch of time, events on the whole since the Middle Ages affirm that Carlyle’s “great man” creates enormous social upheaval. He ushers in eras of bloodshed and revolution that obliterate entire races because change invariably requires upending the status quo. Conversely, the status quo is exactly what Spencer’s “great society” seeks to protect for the greater good, but that would stymie social evolution infinitely. For while ‘great men’ pursue war to validate themselves, ‘great societies’ seek peace to consolidate hierarchies. There can be no innovation, however, industrial of otherwise, without the forces of race and ideology gnawing at each other in the thick soup of society. The boom-bust cycles of history prove it. Unsurprisingly, hence, modern technology has multiplied in our lives by the factor of military advancements. Is Donald Trump one of Carlyle’s great men alongside, in my opinion, the Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his Filipino counterpart Rodrigo Duterte? At least for the year 2016? At the risk of getting trolled, I wager yes. In Trump, we have an outlier who has single-handedly hijacked half of political America, bulldozed decades of election-year wisdom, and the Republican party (GOP) establishment, and all while promising to “make America great again.” He gets full marks for ambition and challenging the status quo, however coarsely. Critics, of course, continue to ridicule his policy statements as one epic gaffe, with some labeling him the “Moscovian candidate” given his admiration for the Russian President Vladimir Putin. Yet, “Teflon Trump” in July edged past 16 highly experienced rivals to seal the GOP’s nomination for president. If nothing else, he has proved to career politicians how out of step they are with the party’s base. Low-income, white male voters without college degrees, and there are 35 million of them, care little for America’s commitment to NATO or its Asia-Pacific allies. They blame free trade deals for bleeding manufacturing jobs at home, and most have concluded that protectionist isolationism in trade, foreign policy and immigration is imperative to turning around America. And yes, they believe Muslims and Mexicans are part of the problem. Trump could well lose in November, but his imprint on American politics will endure for decades. Next we have Rodrigo Duterte, the new president of the Philippines. Another firebrand in the Trump mould with an innate distaste for political propriety. Popularly known as the “Punisher” for ruthlessly cutting down criminals as mayor of Davao City — often without due process — Duterte mopped the floor with his rivals in Philippines’s national vote in May, surging to victory by an astonishing margin of over 6 million votes. How did he win so convincingly? By promising Filipinos he would execute 100,000 more criminals and “dump them into Manila Bay” if elected president. What makes Duterte special is not his vigilante zeal to cure Filipino society of all criminals. It is his utter disdain for the status quo. Let us use foreign policy an example. The US is primed to take over five military bases in the Philippines in a series of regional countermeasures against Beijing’s military posturing in the South China Sea. American Special Forces are also leading counterterror operations inland against the Islamic State (IS) affiliates, Abu Sayyaf. Now given that Manila has territorial disputes with Beijing that it has no hope of resolving without US muscle and a constant need for aid, Duterte, in theory, should be kowtowing to Washington. Fat chance. In August, Duterte hasn’t only disparaged the US ambassador by using a strong homophobic slur, but also refused to walk it back despite complaints from Washington. Earlier, on the campaign trail in April, Duterte had scolded said ambassador and his Australian counterpart for dredging up his old, highly incendiary comments on the 1989 gang-rape and murder of an Australian missionary, ordering them both to “shut their mouth” and not attempt to influence the election. Even Pope Francis has not escaped his wrath. Last year, frustrated at the traffic jams arising from the pontiff’s trip, fearless Duterte used swear words in urging the pope to “Go home. Do not visit us again.” Coincidentally, 86 percent of all Filipinos are Roman Catholics. Lastly, there is Erdogan. Anyone clued into Turkey’s history since World War I will marvel at the efficiency with which he has sidelined the country’s all-powerful military from political matters. After a decade as premier during which time he mollified the generals by pursuing pro-EU legislation, Erdogan has now decided to break a postwar status quo where the army hung like the sword of Damocles over civilian governments. Why? Because the Kemalist military stands in the way of his turning Turkey into an Islamist republic with power completely centralised in his person. Transformative leaders, for better of worse, need a scapegoat to spark revolutions. For Erdogan, the failed coup in July turned into the ideal opportunity to kill two birds with one stone. One, it provided him the perfect pretext to invoke ‘big brother state’ controls in the name of national security, where TV channels and newspapers critical of his policies were shuttered, and journalists thrown in jail. Two, he can now without impediments shake up the military and bureaucracy to install yes-men in key positions and pursue the dismantling of his nemesis, the reclusive cleric Fethullah Gulen’s NGO network, Hizmet. Many would argue that Putin easily deserves to be on this list. I disagree. While he is a first rate politician, there is nothing revolutionary about the Russian president’s brand of power politics. It cleverly borrows from both Tsar Peter the Great and Cardinal Richelieu. Indeed, Putin embodies the status quo in Russia today, a ‘normal’ he carefully cultivated over 15 years. Trump, Duterte and Erdogan are different. They are raising the stakes to dizzying heights amid a crumbling world order. The writer is an Islamabad-based freelance journalist