Thread: What are the traits of an ideal political leader?

India is full of aspiring political leaders but hardly few of them meet the requirements of an ideal leader. Many politicians are either corrupt or lack integrity and accountability. And many leaders take the word politician in negative connotations. At present, we can hardly differentiate between a good leader and a bad one. There are barely some good leaders left in our country but we couldn’t point them out as they are being suppressed by the corrupt ones. With the campaign for Lok Sabha election on the high, it's hard to decide the best. There is no perfect person and leaders are not innately born but every person can become a great leader with enough determination, self reflection, open-mindedness, experience and knowledge to lead the country and fight against various crimes and corruption that people are facing with in everyday life.

"Thus, both the front runners seem to have more faults than merits and yet do not face any stiff competition in the nearing 2014 Lok Sabha elections. The Modi vs. Rahul battle may seem momentous but is it really or does it point to a severe paucity of leaders in the country? A country that had a rich variety of leaders immediately after independence, its current political scenario is marked by a sense of resignation and acceptance. It is important to reinvigorate he political sphere and the leadership. The State needs to keep evolving and for that to happen it is important to have leaders who present a creative alternative to each other. Will the Modi vs. Rahul scenario be one to achieve that is a story to be unfolded in the near future." Saw this blog on a social media platform, Alteranation and i truly agree with the thoughts which are mentioned there. The present political scenario in India is really a disappointing one.

Ok, but what is your opinion on the ideal traits?


BTW, the political system dates back to a time when humans did not even know there was a Pluto in our solar system, when human slaves were still sold as cattle, discrimination of women was common and before computers or the notion of open source development existed, the political system (an economic for that matter) are archaic relics.

That depends entirely on your desired political system and what you want it to achieve? If you want a dictatorship [can be benevolent] then the qualities are probably different to what you need if you want a democracy.

We will never see those traits in our lifetimes, IMHO.

to be reluctant?

some of the greatest leaders are noted as being reluctant to their leadership positions.

George Washington. Abraham Lincoln.
both were reluctant to be President at first. the first more so than the later.

We are far too bitter about political leaders. Most are hard working, honest and have the best of intentions in representative governments.

So many people want honesty and integrity from their politicians here in the States. What they fail to realize is that our system weans our politicians off such virtues long before they become presidentially viable.

"What are the traits of an ideal political leader?"

That he or she DIE immediately after being elected. Sooner, if they are appointed, instead of elected. jocular

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

So many people want honesty and integrity from their politicians here in the States. What they fail to realize is that our system weans our politicians off such virtues long before they become presidentially viable.

I think they get it for the most part. I lay blame mostly on media's focus on problems and reporting and saturating the airways with bad news, while completely ignoring the vast majority doing excellent work for their districts and larger government as a whole. How many US representatives do we even hear a hint of poor ethics about...a dozen or so at worst...while hundreds do what they are supposed to be doing.

I lay blame mostly on media's focus on problems and reporting and saturating the airways with bad news, while completely ignoring the vast majority doing excellent work for their districts and larger government as a whole.

I don't know how it goes elsewhere, but the Murdoch press is absolutely poisonous on the "cost" of government and politicians' "perks". (Remember I'm from the state that gave Murdoch his start in newspaper publishing. The News, an afternoon paper, was the starting point of News International. )

Long ago - in the mid 80s - a friend of ours was a minister in the (Labor) State government. He told us how a premier visiting from another state spotted the afternoon headline on The News. Horrified he asked our then premier, John Bannon, what on earth he was going to do about such a terrible story. Bannon hadn't even noticed it. The visitor responded that if he saw headlines like that, his government would fall. Bannon and the rest of the government had simply got used to the vitriol.

Now of course, Murdoch owns most of Australia's newspapers and, without fail, you can see reports in Sunday editions at least once a month on the "scandal" of politicians travel expenses or office costs or similar. The fact that some ministers have portfolios with overseas obligations, that some members of Australian parliaments have gigantic electorates, that citizens want to be able to take their problems to their local member without having to go to parliamentary offices to do so - all of that costs money - all of this is glossed over or denigrated by ain't-it-awful, L plate journalism.

And this now seems to be universal wherever Murdoch papers dominate - or their style has been adopted by competitors. So when a real scandal erupts, the egregious money-grubbing of far too many politicians in Britain a few years ago, the public sees it as just more of the same rather than as a violation of the ethics of most politicians.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

We are far too bitter about political leaders. Most are hard working, honest and have the best of intentions in representative governments.

IT is a thankless job. You have how many million "employers" so to speak.

Originally Posted by babe

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

We are far too bitter about political leaders. Most are hard working, honest and have the best of intentions in representative governments.

IT is a thankless job. You have how many million "employers" so to speak.

You ARE a dreamer, after all! Given the latitude of politicians' virtual remoteness from the "mainstream", and their "untouchability" guaranteed via security forces and lifetime full-pay pensions, why would they over-exert themselves other than for conscience fueled by their irreverence? joc

Originally Posted by jocular

Originally Posted by babe

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

We are far too bitter about political leaders. Most are hard working, honest and have the best of intentions in representative governments.

IT is a thankless job. You have how many million "employers" so to speak.

You ARE a dreamer, after all! Given the latitude of politicians' virtual remoteness from the "mainstream", and their "untouchability" guaranteed via security forces and lifetime full-pay pensions, why would they over-exert themselves other than for conscience fueled by their irreverence? joc

"but I'm not the only one..."

I don't think they care anymore when they get to this point in their career. Pretty pathetic in my opinion.

Given the latitude of politicians' virtual remoteness from the "mainstream", and their "untouchability" guaranteed via security forces and lifetime full-pay pensions

The provision of "security forces" after retirement doesn't really apply to anyone except those from the highest offices and the random few who managed to come to the attention of seriously threatening violent people.

As for being remote - that might apply to people in national legislatures to a certain extent, especially those with ministerial responsibilities that involve a lot of travel - but most representatives of localities go to considerable trouble to maintain contact with groups and individuals in their electorates.

(Just in case it was not clear, IMO, the major problem is not so much the Political Leaders, but the archaic non-democratic political system itself , and the socio-economic system too).

On leadership, De Sade has this to say: "you can only govern men by deceiving them; one must be hypocritical to deceive them; the enlightened man will never let himself be led, therefore it, is necessary to deprive him of enlightenment to lead him as we want...".

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

So many people want honesty and integrity from their politicians here in the States. What they fail to realize is that our system weans our politicians off such virtues long before they become presidentially viable.

I think they get it for the most part. I lay blame mostly on media's focus on problems and reporting and saturating the airways with bad news, while completely ignoring the vast majority doing excellent work for their districts and larger government as a whole. How many US representatives do we even hear a hint of poor ethics about...a dozen or so at worst...while hundreds do what they are supposed to be doing.

I agree, for the most part. My post wasn't entirely serious.

I will say that as much as I want to blame the media, I always have to remind myself that their job is NOT to provide us with accurate or even factual news. Their job is simply to get viewers and boost ratings. It's a pleasant rarity to find a journalist willing to take on an unpopular topic or place blame on his network's chosen party affiliation simply out of respect for journalistic integrity. The media is just feeding us what the majority of us want to eat. Of course, I'm just speaking to the mainstream media. It's not too hard to find good news if you look beyond the television set.

I don't think the politicians themselves are really the bad guys in this. What we have here in the States is a government set up to fail. Our fed is so bloated and unwieldy that they cannot perform their job in a quick or effective way. Factoring in intentional roadblocks like walk-outs and filibusters, it's amazing we can get anything done at a federal level.

While I shudder at the thought of some backwards states being given more power, I think it's the only way to build a more agile government.

In conclusion, as much as I'd love to give serious points on what I want from a politician, it's hard to be bothered when the government in he/she will be operating is so overburdened.

An attractive mustache.

Just in case it was not clear, IMO, the major problem is not so much the Political Leaders, but the archaic non-democratic political system itself , and the socio-economic system too

So I presume you're not in a system that adheres strictly to one-vote, one-value. I realise the US system doesn't, it doesn't even want everyone to vote as far as I can see it - but some features of democratic processes in other places I also find a bit of an eye-opener.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

We are far too bitter about political leaders. Most are hard working, honest and have the best of intentions in representative governments.

Adolf H, you are forgiven.

Originally Posted by Dave Wilson

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

We are far too bitter about political leaders. Most are hard working, honest and have the best of intentions in representative governments.

Adolf H, you are forgiven.

He DID, after all, qualify the statement using the word "most". A fact, however, to which I do not adhere. jocular