Masaki Shibutani
Jun 26 · Last update 9 mo. ago.
Do you think that a strong leader is necessary to lead the country?
Today, the quality of a leader is changing in many countries. There has appeared leaders who maximize the benefits of international relations, like President Trump, rather than leaders aiming for coordination with each country. In Turkey, President Erdogan has also been reelected in the presidential election as a leader with tremendous power in the country. In addition, there are many leaders who set up an extreme policy in each country. Meanwhile, strong leaders create conflicts both domestically and internationally, and it may become a negative to own country. Do leaders leading the country need to have strong leadership?
Stats of Viewpoints
Having a leader should be superseded by something more effective
1 agrees
0 disagrees
Some styles of leadership suit certain situations better than others
0 agrees
0 disagrees
You need a strong leader to be able to affect change
0 agrees
1 disagrees
There is no need for a strong leader for domestically
1 agrees
0 disagrees
Viewpoints
Add New Viewpoint
Having a leader should be superseded by something more effective

A leader is an antiquated idea and people should be using technology to decide on issues as a form of direct democracy. This could entail voting on case by case basis, rather than one leader or group making all the decisions for a nation of wildly varying views. One person cannot possibly represent all these people's opinions well and technology could be utilised so that people can decide on the issues that matter to them.

People should make the decisions and politicians should just be putting those decisions into effect. Following the information revolution, the days of people needing to be led should be over. Technologies such as blockchain could be utilised to construct an incorruptible distributed transparent voting system, which would also make the process easier allowing for a bigger voter turnout. This would in turn create a more accurate representation of a population's actual opinions and beliefs.

Currently human error and failure to commit to full discussions on many issues, and even a failure to vote on certain issues can pose a significant issue in some democratic systems. Likewise strong or pushy leaders may be voted in on the basis of key issues and then u-turn or undo some other policy that could be detrimental to many in society. Issues like this have led countries such as Switzerland to revolutionise the democratic system, and use direct democracy and a revolving system of groups presidency to avoid several downsides of democracy. The Swiss government is lead by a team of seven heads of administration for certain departments, each having equal rights and power and taking successive short terms to function as figurehead president of the country. Switzerland is also one country to pioneer electronic voting to regularly hold nationwide referendums on important economic and social issues.

Arguably if technology allowed people to vote on all issues directly these problems would be somewhat alleviated, and policy making could move forward in a more linear fashion. Overbearing leaders have many downsides and technology could help us in overcoming these and many other downsides of democracy. Direct democracy and technology should be used to ascertain the actual, varied, and shifting views and opinions of people throughout society on a regular basis, and be left to a few people to interpret what constituents think or feel about certain matters. This whole system of politics is obsolete and antiquated, and in an era of increasing synchronicity with technology our governments need to mirror how society in general is progressing, and not stagnate and be left behind to become the target of societal frustrations.

medium.com/politics-ai/ai-politicians-a-revolution-in-politics-11a7e4ce90b0 direct-democracy.geschichte-schweiz.ch swiss-government-politics.all-about-switzerland.info

Agree
Disagree
Latest conversation
Daniel Halliday
Mar 12
Approved
DH edited this paragraph
Arguably if technology allowed people to vote on all issues directly these problems would be somewhat alleviated, and policy making could move forward in a more linear fashion. Overbearing leaders have many downsides and technology could help us in overcoming these and many other downsides of democracy. Direct democracy and technology should be used to ascertain the actual, varied, and shifting views and opinions of people throughout society on a regular basis, and be left to a few people to interpret what constituents think or feel about certain matters. This whole system of politics is obsolete and antiquated, and in an era of increasing synchronicity with technology our governments need to mirror how society in general is progressing, and not stagnate and be left behind to become the target of societal frustrations.
Some styles of leadership suit certain situations better than others

A strong leader may be beneficial in some circumstances. Circumstances where the absence of a strong leader has lead to total chaos, may sometimes render a dictatorship to be a necessary evil. Take Rwanda for example, genocide occurred directly after the assassination of one dictator, and it has taken the rule of what is becoming another Dictator to arguably fix the country. While there are harsh laws curtailing freedom of speech to keep the country under control, Kagame has also implemented economic reforms that have lead Rwanda to be one of the fastest growing economies in the world.

Paul Kagame took power in 2000 as the president of Rwanda, following his predecessor’s resignation. This period in Rwanda’s governing has seen Kagame implement reforms to education and health care, as well as far-reaching economic improvements. Kagame began to implement his ‘Vision 2020’ development program in 2000, a government led program to transform Rwanda into a middle-income country by 2020, and growth has subsequently averaged 8.2% from 2000 until 2017.

However, during the same period he has also been accused of political repression and pushing censorship laws, such as the banning of talking about tribal or ethnic differences in the country. Even before his time leading the country Kagame stood by as Vice President and did nothing about the revenge killings that followed the genocide. He has also sponsored controversial insurgencies and warfare in Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of the Congo) as President, and he has been accused of personally changing the constitution. These corrupt reforms and the quashing of political opposition may see Kagame remain in power until 2034, but despite all this he remains distinctly popular.

It may be the case that you cannot fit a square peg into a round hole, and some leaders just suit certain situations better than others. In some unfortunate situations difficult, or seemingly harsh, decisions may need to be made in order to preserve public order or peace. The issue of a strong leader is different in different systems, how much of an opposition they have and how safe and open the opposition are allowed to be should matter more than the individual leaders strength.

independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/rwanda-president-paul-kagame-twitter-british-tourist-tweeted-a-dictator-a7399906.html data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG?locations=RW

Agree
Disagree
Latest conversation
Daniel Halliday
Mar 12
Approved
DH edited this paragraph
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/rwanda-president-paul-kagame-twitter-british-tourist-tweeted-a-dictator-a7399906.html https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG?locations=RW
You need a strong leader to be able to affect change

It’s not just dictatorships that can have strong leaders, democracies need strong leaders also. Leaders need to be perceived as strong to even be elected in a democratic system. In what is, in essence, a popularity contest a leader will have to have a strong personality, strong economic or policy plans, or strong moral values to get into that position to begin with. In the absence of a strong decisive leader the overwhelming chaos of disparate views could derail the democratic process, undo progress and ultimately lead to nothing being accomplished.

Leaders like Thatcher and Reagan started taking power away from governments and gave more economic autonomy to banks. This continued through the subsequent leaderships of Tony Blair in the UK, and Bill Clinton & George Bush in the US, leading to a world financial crisis caused by illegal lending practices in 2008. This was a crisis that lessons were not learned from as leaders such as Barack Obama failed to punish or reform what had become a very corrupt worldwide banking system that allowed such a downturn.

While these self-serving democratic entities were failing their constituencies, some authoritarian leaders around the world have degraded freedoms in their societies but have meanwhile managed to oversee periods of monumental economic growth. Arguably, some strong leaders have led more people to prosperity than many of the self proclaimed "leaders of the free world". Leaders such as Xi Jingping, Evo Morales, and Paul Kagame have degraded either human rights or democracy during their time in power, but all have overseen periods of tremendous economic growth, bringing many people out of poverty in the process. Maybe the world needs something in between these extremes, but unquestionably stronger more honest leaders are crucial at this time.

Governments too often devolve into self serving entities that exploit citizens to further their career or consolidate some form of power, and examples of this can be found in nearly all political systems. The world needs more strong leaders that are bold enough to curtail the excesses of government and keep bureaucracy lean and government functioning well and effectively, while not stifling their region economically. This is arguably not occurring often enough, with most leaders choosing to prop up systems that are failing in order to sustain their own careers in a bubble of ignorance.

theguardian.com/business/blog/2008/oct/14/creditcrunch-thatcher-reagan theguardian.com/business/economics-blog/2015/aug/19/china-poverty-inequality-development-goals telesurenglish.net/analysis/Bolivia-Under-Evo-Morales-13-Years-of-Reclaiming-Sovereignty-20190123-0017.html

Agree
Disagree
Latest conversation
Daniel Halliday
Mar 11
Approved
DH edited this paragraph
Governments too often devolve into self serving entities that exploit citizens to further their career or consolidate some form of power, and examples of this can be found in nearly all political systems. The world needs more strong leaders that are bold enough to curtail the excesses of government and keep bureaucracy lean and government functioning well and effectively, while not stifling their region economically. This is arguably not occurring often enough, with most leaders choosing to prop up systems that are failing in order to sustain their own careers in a bubble of ignorance.
There is no need for a strong leader for domestically

Certainly, there is the possibility that politics can become unstable through changing leader with every election. Even if it is thought that a strong leader is necessary to win an election, democracy should require citizens of various positions to cooperate. In this modern networked world one strong personality should not simply be ruling but we should be looking to make decisions as a community and rely on strength in numbers rather than the strength of one. Thus, strong leadership like a dictator should not be necessary.

Conversely, since many countries try to maximise their own benefits in international relations, there is a possibility that they will lose pace in international politics if they are not in possession of strong leaders. However there are different types of strength when it comes to leading a country, and at times compassion and flexibility make you stronger as a political candidate than strength of character and outspokenness. Therefore, strong leaders are often required in external matters, but strength may mean that cooperative qualities are sometimes required.

Strong leaders are usually thought to exhibit more ‘masculine’ styles of leadership, being assertive, ego-driven, dominant, competitive and even arrogant or stubborn. However in the age of the internet we are seeing a divided world that seems to suffer a real deficit of compassion, collaboration and togetherness. So arguably a modern leader needs some flexibility, emotional intuitiveness and consensus building abilities to balance out what is commonly perceived as making a 'powerful leader'. Just as society's conception of gender is changing in recent years maybe leadership needs a similar concept change, maybe what the world needs now are more ‘feminine’, caring, and supportive characters in leadership roles.

Angela Merkel may be a good example of this, often being depicted as a strong mother figure for Germans (often fondly referred to as "Mutti" in Germany) and as default leader of the European Union. Merkel has become the longest-serving head of government in the history of the EU by combining powerful economic management, a talent for building consensus, and compassion to deal with some of the biggest problems that have face not only her country but the continent in the last few decades, the global financial crisis and the migrant crisis. Despite controversial decisions and a dip in approval rating following crises, Merkel has undoubtedly overseen a difficult period and led her country to greater economic and diplomatic success, a style that could arguably be wise to emulate elsewhere.

theguardian.com/public-leaders-network/2013/apr/22/public-service-leadership-style-crisis knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/the-masculine-and-feminine-sides-of-leadership-and-culture-perception-vs-reality time.com/time-person-of-the-year-2015-angela-merkel youtube.com/watch?v=q7Eb4KVw4nE

Agree
Disagree
Latest conversation
Daniel Halliday
Mar 11
Approved
DH edited this paragraph
Certainly, there is the possibility that politics can become unstable through changing leader with every election. Even if it is thought that a strong leader is necessary to win an election, democracy should require citizens of various positions to cooperate. In this modern networked world one strong personality should not simply be ruling but we should be looking to make decisions as a community and rely on strength in numbers rather than the strength of one. Thus, strong leadership like a dictator should not be necessary.
Translate