It wasn’t too long ago when Benedict’s predecessor told Blair not to aggravate divisions in the aftermath of 9/11. A few days later, Tony Blair was gung-ho about the invasion of Iraq.

Short of praying for the Deluge, what could the Pope possibly contribute to ending terrorism and the war in Iraq ? The problem doesn’t lie with the people on their knees in church, synagogue, or mosque, but with the men who give orders to drop bombs and kill other people.

No wonder blogs in the Internet and commentaries in media call Blair a "pathetic tinpot dictator" for saying that his highest duty was to end terrorism above safeguarding human rights. The same description was applied to his big partner, George W. Bush, for "rigging elections" and going to war without the sanction of the UN.

As if on cue, our own president has recently been described as a "tinpot dictator." This isn’t just a pun but a suggestion that like Blair, she isn’t a "big kettle" like Marcos.

But the view from this angle is that GMA, for all her imperious ways with the Cabinet, 1017, EOs, and tough responses to issues, isn’t by any means a tinpot or any kind of dictator. A dictator is he or she who must be obeyed. There’s sparse evidence for that.

What’s clear is that military and police elements are saying publicly that they are acting in her name, that Congress, at least the House, are united with her, and that there are many support groups who tell the public that their "surveys" show that a majority of the people are behind Charter change.

Such a large "constituency" hasn’t met with any effective challenge from a civil society that charterists consider part of the great movement under a "climate of impunity."

That’s not dictatorship but free consent. Isn’t it?