Debate #1 - Political Leadership

Many people admire leaders who have effectively achieved their goals. However, many leaders are dedicated to achieving their goals at the expense of caring for the people who follow and support them. Leaders should be judged on how well they treat people, not on the achievement of their goals.


Debate #1:

Should political leaders be judged according to how well they treat people?

I think that political leaders must assess the decisions that they plan to make carefully. Not only looking at the final goal in mind, but also how they will get to that goal. Who will be affected by it the most? Can this be compensated for? Do the benefits of achieving this goal outweigh the costs of it.

I think that political leaders who actually care about the people they are serving, do consider the costs of their decisions. One would hope, that at times, it is difficult for them, and that they go to bed at night thinking about the costs of that decision.

Other things to consider are the longer term goals. A policy might not be popular right now, or for the next few years or months it may have a terrible cost on people. But what benefit will it bring in a year, or 10 years? Speaking from my own country, the government has introduced several policies such as a Mining Tax and a Carbon Tax, that we will reap the benefits of moreso in the decades to come. Right now it's unpopular, but I think in a few more years, people will look back on it and say that it was a good decision.

Whether or not a leader is 'successful' or not requires a definition of what comprises success. In all reality, a leader that is 'successful' in the one that can maintain power and position, and that is an unfortunate situation. It also depends upon what system such a leader is operating in.

For instance, Fidel Castro is a very successful leader insofar as he maintained power for as long as he did without catching an assassin's bullet. However, he was very unsuccessful in treating his people well because he was/is nothing more than a totalitarian thug who killed anyone who got in his way. His goal was that he was a very successful totalitarian thug, and he is admired by his people (who are also his victims) for it.

Well, what if Castro's goal were to eliminate his political opponents and to assume power for as long as he did?

I suspect it depends whether a leader is in pursuit of power or to further/better the plight of those he leads.

I do believe leaders should be judged based on how well they treat people. We must admit however, that leaders that treat their people well are not always the best leaders.

In my opinion, effective leadership is the ability to get others to act. You can do this while being nice and you can also do this while being not so nice. To me, the method is less important than the effectiveness of getting things done.

The caveat to this is that not all leaders can be effective (getting others to act) within both paradigms. Some leaders simply are only effective when they are mean or effective when nice. People judge leaders and respond to them within certain contexts. It's up to the leader to determine the context in which he or she can be most effective while leading a particular group and exploiting that perspective in order to maximize the output of the group.

This topic has run its course and has been archived.