World Leaders That Don't Suck
 

Just curious what chiefs of state y'all think are doing their jobs right, or close to it. You don't have to agree with them on every issue, but of the 200ish out there, which ones do you think others should be looking at to learn how to do their jobs right?

My list:

...


...

Yeah.

Hence why I'm curious; sometimes I feel like if every world leader was dragged out and shot and replaced by a citizen at random, we'd be a hell of a lot better off. But that can't be right.

Re: World Leaders That Don't Suck
 

Can I add no-one else to your list ?

Re: World Leaders That Don't Suck
 

Surely there has to be more to being a world leader than throwing bombs at iraqi hospitals and bashing france to high heaven?

Just a thought =p

Re: World Leaders That Don't Suck
 

yes i think the situation could only be improved by assuming that everyone who hasn't ever been a chief of state has no worthwhile input on anything.

PS: this thread could have subtitled "maybe we are being too critical/setting standards too high"

but any way, back on topic.

Re: World Leaders That Don't Suck
 

I think I'd replace 'do their jobs right?' with 'are as cool as hollywood celebrities?'.

And then we can all remember that oh, yeah, being a 'world leader' isn't* a popularity contest.

*Whereas, say, getting there usually is. Unless you're Musharraf.

Re: World Leaders That Don't Suck
 

Fidel Castro for world President!

But seriously, every leader is pretty shit. One of the main problems I think is that the world is finel balanced and so an individual leader taking the morally valid path (depending on what you think that is) is going to find that another country is going to start expoliting where you were previously gaining an advantage. this would in turn lead to you being voted out as these morally-valid economic policies would have a negative impact on your country. So unless all the worlds leaders decide to stop being shit at the same time they don't really have muc of an option if they want to maintain power.

Re: World Leaders That Don't Suck
 

The guy running sealand is doing a decent job.

Re: World Leaders That Don't Suck
 

i can see why we think of GD as being such a meeting of minds with platitudes this meaningful.

Re: World Leaders That Don't Suck
 

Hu Jintao. He keeps the Asian horde under control.

Re: World Leaders That Don't Suck
 

i was going to write something like this, so im just going to say:

qft

Re: World Leaders That Don't Suck
 

oh, i can add something,

its all capitalism's fault. Though some might think that a bit too obvious to put

Re: World Leaders That Don't Suck
 

deepflow is a skateboard anarchist :(

Re: World Leaders That Don't Suck
 

Politicians do what is good, not what is best.

Re: World Leaders That Don't Suck
 

just because i dislike capitalism and don't write essays about it like dante and t&f doesnt make me a sk8er anarchist :(

or does it? :(

Re: World Leaders That Don't Suck
 

I think we need a world leader who unites people, who unites countries, who brings together different populations so that we work together somehow to accomplish our goals. And what are our goals? I wish we also had a world leader who would set some serious goals for the world. Something idealistic, like the abolishment of the illicit international arms trade, the end of third world debt, saving Africa, etc. Give us a timetable. I don't know. At one point I thought Kofi Annan was a decent fellow until that oil-for-food program scandal that implicated his son.

Re: World Leaders That Don't Suck
 

George Bush.

Re: World Leaders That Don't Suck
 

Oh f'k, you mean Bono don't you ?

Re: World Leaders That Don't Suck
 

I always thought John Peel (RIP) would have made a great British dictator.
Nelson Mandela seems a amiable sort of chap. Winnie can stay well away though.

Re: World Leaders That Don't Suck
 

Hugo Chavez.

Beats the rest by miles.

Re: World Leaders That Don't Suck
 

I would post my opinion but i cba to read all the 'your such a prick' replies and rep.

Re: World Leaders That Don't Suck
 

It's very difficult to be a "leader" of anything, especially in the current system, and not be a ****.

If forced, I'd say Chavez and Castro are probably better than others (given the context they're in), but if we were applying standards of justice normally applied to the citizenry, they'd still both be doing some jail time.

Re: World Leaders That Don't Suck
 

Conan the Barbarian

Re: World Leaders That Don't Suck
 

tbh, Pervez topped off my list with a D+. He's determined on turning a country that is wildly undemocratic, forces 4 year-olds to marry their 79 year old uncles, and is hellbent on murdering their neighbors into a country that is wildly undemocratic, is hellbent on murdering their neighbors, and doesn't force young girls to marry their uncles.

Here is one place where we can honestly say 'could be worse'
What is it about Castro that you think other world leaders should emulate?
What is it about him that you think other world leaders should emulate?
but for leaders outside asia. should vcente fox be keeping the NA Caucasian/Native population horde under control? Or is that more of a region-specific quality?
What is it about him that you think other world leaders should emulate? (in context, it seemed his world-uniting skills...)
What is it about him that you think other world leaders should emulate?
Why Hugo?

I don't know anything about him except that he beat out one coup that was completely 100% unsponsored by the U.S. government and got re-elected.

Re: World Leaders That Don't Suck
 

You may be right but then this has been so much fun we are reluctant to move on though throwing bombs at Iran and bashing Germany also sounds nice.

Re: World Leaders That Don't Suck
 

I dunno, but right now, for sheer comedy value in "Setting your countries international reputation back to how it was in the Dark Ages", youd struggle to find better than Parvez Musharrak.

"Whats that you say? We have an international Heroine? A woman who was gang raped by order of a local council, and who became an icon of our country, showing how whilst these things go on, we are taking steps to move forward and bring our justice system into line with that of the west? We cant be having this, lets persuade her subtly that she shouldnt leave the country for a tour of the US. And if the insolent bitch doesnt understand that subtletly, lets take her passport away and place her under virtual house address. I mean, lets face it, she probably deserved it for being part of a loser family anyway".

:rolleyes:

Re: World Leaders That Don't Suck
 

What about the Dalai Lama (sp?) ?

The thing is, the media loves negative stories. So we hear all about the awful things that world leaders have supposedly done. Does this mean that if we DON'T hear about them, they're doing a pretty good job?

I know nothing about Japanese politics. Or Australian. I couldn't name any Scandinavian world leaders. Or South American. Does this mean they're shit, or just that they're not doing anything that's so bad that it's worth writing about?

Re: World Leaders That Don't Suck
 

*cough* Ronald Regan *cough*

Re: World Leaders That Don't Suck
 

Re: World Leaders That Don't Suck
 

I think Musharraf scores points simply for being one of the few leaders that seems to be more sane than his consituency. The whole 'if it weren't for him, the fundies would have nukes!' line works nicely in his favor as well.

I bet there are some jealous africans who wish they had fundies to make them look good.

Re: World Leaders That Don't Suck
 

Your question is so vague as to be meaningless.

"Hey guys, who's best at doing "stuff"?"

What do you mean by "their jobs"? What do you consider "their jobs" to be?

Re: World Leaders That Don't Suck
 

John Howards my man.
________
Extreme Q Vaporizer Settings

Re: World Leaders That Don't Suck
 

Ummm yeah, that's basically what my post is asking.

What should they be doing?

To figure out what it means to be a great leader, do you start out with the qualities you would want, and look to see which leaders have them, or do you start by looking at which leaders you think are doing a good job/have made their countries better/respect, and see what qualities they have?

I don't know. All I know is that I don't like the qualities possessed by our leaders and I don't think they are making things better. Above people have argued that being leader forces you to be a douche. I would contend that being a douche helps you on the road to becoming a leader. So apparently, I don't even have cause and effect ordered. Or perhaps correlation? Could there be some third force out there causing people to both become leaders and incompetent pricks?

Or maybe not being king of the world causes the average person to become bitter and hypercritical. Or maybe it just causes me to become bitter and hypercritical. Except not, because that's just about the only theory shot down so far this thread.

So since to start, I had no real clue about anything, vague was pretty clearly the direction to go. But to clarify,

A) What makes a leader good?
B) Are the leaders of the world as 'not good' as they appear to me to be?
C) Do they have a choice in the matter (i.e., does their position force them to be as crap as they seem)?

Re: World Leaders That Don't Suck
 

Here, you can have mine: shut up faggot
anonymous ofc.

Re: World Leaders That Don't Suck
 

Mustafa Mond.

Re: World Leaders That Don't Suck
 

1) For using the oil revenues to improve ordinarty citizens health care and education.
2) For refusing to give in to the usual pressure from the rich
3) For redistributing land to landless farmers
4) For putting his own country before the needs of USA

And Im all with T&F for the east-timor guy (who won the nobel peace price a few years ago).
Im also hoping for George Weah as president of Liberia.

Re: World Leaders That Don't Suck
 

Hmm, well to be honest I'm perfectly happy with our existing local one, John Howard.

Re: World Leaders That Don't Suck
 

So what so fantastic about Howard? His support for U.S imperialism in Iraq, the way he plays on racism to gain votes or his efforts to redistribute as much wealth as posible into the hands of the top 5% of the population? :)

Re: World Leaders That Don't Suck
 

I'm sure that's quite good if you happen to be in the top 5 percent or a U.S imperialist.

Re: World Leaders That Don't Suck
 

You say this as if it were a bad thing! Speaking as an American Imperialist, racist in the tiop 5%, I will put Howard right up there with Bush.

Re: World Leaders That Don't Suck
 

I assume you can do all this without being an increasingly auhoritarian shit-head.

Re: World Leaders That Don't Suck
 

Im with jaikri, the question is too open to be much use, but in order to say something



A) Ultimately, being the voice and will of your people - doing what they want

B) You are an american living in america and are used to living under the culture of america, those leaders (assuming they're elected or if not, 'populist' in vague terms) are the voice and will of their people. Those people live differently to you so it isn't really surprising that they are attracted by different people. Not good to you is good to them.

C) Once in power it is enevitable that a leader will 'lose touch' with the people, unless you're making the decisions theres always going to be someone who doesn't agree with them.

Re: World Leaders That Don't Suck
 

There seems to be a thing in the BBC for documentry teams to do fly on the important wall things in the last few years. They had a film crew inside the government whilst that coup was going on.

All i can say is south americans have no idea how to plan a proper uprising. Leaving the old place/presidential guards in place *tutut*.

edit/ apparently they were irish

Re: World Leaders That Don't Suck
 

No, that's being a good follower--a populist.

Good leaders lead. That means taking a position (possibly unpopular) and--in a democracy--persuading the voters that it's the right thing to do. It means not changing your positions (or worse, pretending to change them) when there's an election in order to get/keep power.

Re: World Leaders That Don't Suck
 

i don't see how taking a random position and sticking to it makes someone a good leader.

Or even worse, taking a position which is in the interests of you and powerful corporate lobbyists across the world. Or possibly just being a charismatic crazy bastard "lo hitler" and then sticking to your policies.

I don't really see what on earth you're on about, just because someone has a position and sticks to it doesnt make them a good leader. It makes them stubborn.

ofc that CAN be good, but it rarely is.

Re: World Leaders That Don't Suck
 

The question was ambigious so I answered by saying ultimately leaders must be the will of the people, because in essence they must be. In a democratic system the most popular person gets the power, it is inherently about populism. The people aren't an uneducated mass that is on the verge of tearing itself apart but rather the architects of their destiny.

I don't buy into arguments that the political elite need to talk the people into anything, it assumes a relative chasm of sophistication between the politicians and the people which i just don't think exists.

Re: World Leaders That Don't Suck
 

I don't believe I said random, but whatever.
Nothing wrong with that, if (and this would have required reading my whole post so you probably missed it) you persuade the voters that it's the right thing to do.
Hitler wasn't too big on democracy and his "persuasion" consisted of brownshirts beating up the opposition.
Well yes, in the sense that most people don't persuade (m)any other people that their position is correct. Haven't we already established that good leaders are a rare commodity?

Re: World Leaders That Don't Suck
 

If you're doing exactly what the people/your superiors/whatever other collective grouping want, in spite of your own convictions, then you're not a leader - you're a bureaucrat.

Re: World Leaders That Don't Suck
 

In a vague attempt, I am going to try and be intellectual and join a GD conversation. Even though this place hates me, and scares me. :(

I would say that a good leader is hard to describe on the basis that morality is subjective. However, my definition of a 'good leader' is one that takes policies that provides the 'greatest happiness for the greatest majority' within his own country and offers the same chances and rights for all citizens.

In foreign affairs, they will try to resolve disputes peacefully, not be driven only by greed, but will also step in with force if required in order to defend other nations or peoples from subjugation, persecution or from otherwise losing their rights.

They will also work to ensure that business and production is to suit the needs of the people and the environmnt (which, in the long term, will benefit the people). When they make a decision based on fulfilling these aims, they will then stick by this in so long as it fits these requirements (eg. if new information comes to light that a certain policy would cause greater damage it should be abandoned), and they should be able to persuade the populace to agree with their policies, and do everything possible to come through with what they have promised.

Unfortunately, running and maintaining a powerful state requires low morals and ruthless exploitation of others. Therefore, due to human nature, many world leaders will be shit.

Finally, my choice would be Hugo Chavez.

Re: World Leaders That Don't Suck
 

It's so easy labeling people isnt it. Specially without backing it up with any arguments. So where did you read that Chavez is such an autoritharian? The Sun? Its hardly your first one-liner is it.
Besides that, labeling is ofcourse fun. But it dont jugde people on their label, but what they actually do.
And for the record, Mr. Chavez didnt have resist to electoral fraud like George W. Bush. Even when the media was against him.

Re: World Leaders That Don't Suck
 

It's patently obvious to all but those who are blinded by a combination of hate for the US and ideology (Which is to say, people like you.) that Chavez is not the most committed person in the world to liberal democratic norms. Journalists frequently complain of harrasment, he has a professed admiration for Robert Mugabe, et al, his restrictions on media material which harms "the national interest", his own TV and Radio slots on the state network, etc. You begin to wonder how long a real democratic system in Venezuela will hold up; note I said increasingly.

Even so, his economic reforms have been largely inneffectual anyway. unemployment and inflation have increased dramatically, GDP has dropped, and that's surely not a good thing by any standard we choose. I think Venezuela has the potential to go much the same way as Zimbabwe and other such states - ruined on a pseudo-Socialist populist programme based around scapegoating of the evul forces of imperialism. I don't really see any need to hold him up as a master of political leadership.