What Makes a "Good" Ruler?

[JamesHackerMP]

Definitely more of a philosophical thread, this is.  So: what makes a ruler good? By what metrics do we measure him/her? There are lots of different standards of political philosophy.  I was curious what Canadians (and others) seem to think about this one.

[eyeball]

An honest candidate running a clean campaign followed by a fair election.

Except that would be a good leader.

A good ruler would give their power to a leader.

[Altai]

Moving not with emotions but with logic makes a ruler good. Today we dont have any. Even the best politicians making this mistake sometimes. 

I assure you, I wont make such a mistake if you choose me as your president.

Edited November 1, 2016 by Altai

[JamesHackerMP]

1 hour ago, Altai said:

Moving not with emotions but with logic makes a ruler good. Today we dont have any. Even the best politicians making this mistake sometimes. 

I assure you, I wont make such a mistake if you choose me as your president.

Are you willing to run? I'd take anybody over the current crop of candidates, at this point.

Yes, with logic rather than emotions: that's a good point.  A lot of leaders do what "feels good" for a particular group of people they hope will vote for them, especially at the moment, rather than what is in the long-term interests of those people.

[JamesHackerMP]

On 10/31/2016 at 11:46 AM, eyeball said:

An honest candidate running a clean campaign followed by a fair election.

Except that would be a good leader.

A good ruler would give their power to a leader.

Also: what do you mean by that? I do not understand.

[Wilber]

We live in a constitutional monarchy. The Queen is the ruler but the Prime Minister leads.

[JamesHackerMP]

Mmmmm hmm! But a Canadian citizen told me H.M. reigns and Parliament rules.  Both Queen Elizabeth and Mr. Trudeau are leaders; but the former may lead by example at most, the latter by means of actual power.

Speaking of those who "rule" my intent was to examine those who have actual power to call the shots, not those who wield authority on paper but no de facto power.

[eyeball]

In that case benevolence is probably the only metric that really matters to the ruled.

[JamesHackerMP]

Define "benevolence".  I mean, I have a dictionary; but is what is benevolent in the context of a ruler?

Edited November 2, 2016 by JamesHackerMP

[Altai]

8 hours ago, Wilber said:

We live in a constitutional monarchy. The Queen is the ruler but the Prime Minister leads.

 You think so but its false. This is what you are thought while its just the opposite in fact. Britain is directly ruled by the Queen, as in all other colonies, such as Canada. She can terminate the parliament, she can appoint a prime minister, she can appoint the high council.

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, JamesHackerMP said:

Define "benevolence".  I mean, I have a dictionary; but is what is benevolent in the context of a ruler?

You really can't figure this out on your own? 

[JamesHackerMP]

18 minutes ago, eyeball said:

You really can't figure this out on your own? 

There's no need to be sarcastic or patronizing, Eyeball.  I was asking how a ruler should be benevolent, not what the definition of "benevolent" is.

In other words "could you develop that point?"

Also:

1 hour ago, Altai said:

 You think so but its false. This is what you are thought while its just the opposite in fact. Britain is directly ruled by the Queen, as in all other colonies, such as Canada. She can terminate the parliament, she can appoint a prime minister, she can appoint the high council.

You ignore the difference between political power and constitutional authority.  They're not always commensurate.  Also, I can attest to the fact that Canada is a fully-independent nation-state with its own international representation.  (There is a Canadian Embassy in Washington for example.)  Bermuda, the Caymans, the Falklands, they're all crown colonies.  Canada is not.

Edited November 2, 2016 by JamesHackerMP

[JamesHackerMP]

All right, to prove that I can "figure it out on my own", I'll give you my view.  A leader cannot always be "benevolent".  When someone commits a murder, or other such infamous crimes, you lock him or her up in prison.  That is not benevolent; it is cruel for the State to take away someone's liberty and/or property, to confine them in a little cell the rest of their life.  But that cruelty is necessary to prevent their committing acts of cruelty on others in society.  So a ruler/leader being "benevolent" all the time is harmful to his subjects/fellow citizens.

Machiavelli cites an example of how a cruel ruler, Cesare Borgia, restored peace and happiness to the Romagna, while the Florentine Republic harmed the citizens of Pisa by refraining from showing a heavy hand during protests that harmed its citizens.

This is not to say that a ruler should go too far, and use cruelty willy-nilly on his citizens; wake up in a bad mood and "oh I think I'll clear out the prisons by shooting all the prisoners myself for s**** and grins." Of course not.  But sometimes cruelty can be used in appropriate situations whereas benevolence or clemency can be improperly used.  A ruler needs to use cruelty as rarely as possible, and as lightly as possible.  But if he refrains from using it too much, disorder will persist, and, in the end, he or she will be unable to avoid using it and must use a lot of it and more frequently.

[JamesHackerMP]

not sure how the last sentence got struck out like that...

[carepov]

On 31/10/2016 at 5:00 AM, JamesHackerMP said:

Definitely more of a philosophical thread, this is.  So: what makes a ruler good? By what metrics do we measure him/her? There are lots of different standards of political philosophy.  I was curious what Canadians (and others) seem to think about this one.

The best way to judge a ruler is based on the success/failure of of their decisions and implemented policy.  

Bad policy = Bad Rulers
-Neville Chamberlain
-Mao
-George Bush II

In my book, a ruler gets bonus points if they implemented a good but unpopular policy.  For example:
-Pierre Trudeau for abolishing capital punishment
-Brian Mulroney for Free Trade (to too unpopular) and the GST (very unpopular)
-Jean Chretien (and Paul Martin) for tough cuts and converting deficits into surpluses

Here is an interesting article on the subject:

http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/ranking-canadas-best-and-worst-prime-ministers/

[eyeball]

6 hours ago, JamesHackerMP said:

 A leader cannot always be "benevolent".

Sure they can. Any leader, even a ruler, is capable of  dispensing justice without prejudice. There is no need for malice or cruelty at all. In fact I'd argue these just make things worse.

[JamesHackerMP]

Really? So you wouldn't stoop to putting murderers in prison? (even in the US many states have outlawed the death penalty or commuted death sentences, but still, isn't it cruel to confine people, to strip them of all property and liberty for the rest of their lives? I would agree a murderer deserves to be stripped of all liberty and property, but still, it's a necessary use of cruelty.)

Canada participated in World War II (earlier than the United States).  Should the British Empire & its dominions have simply let the Axis walk all over the world? The allies subjected Germany/Japan/Italy and their citizens to extreme cruelty, even brutality, but it had to be done to defend our freedom and our lives, right? So what are you going to do, not have a military (and use it in war) because that's cruel?

[JamesHackerMP]

1 hour ago, carepov said:

The best way to judge a ruler is based on the success/failure of of their decisions and implemented policy.  

Bad policy = Bad Rulers
-Neville Chamberlain
-Mao
-George Bush II

In my book, a ruler gets bonus points if they implemented a good but unpopular policy.  For example:
-Pierre Trudeau for abolishing capital punishment
-Brian Mulroney for Free Trade (to too unpopular) and the GST (very unpopular)
-Jean Chretien (and Paul Martin) for tough cuts and converting deficits into surpluses

Here is an interesting article on the subject:

http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/ranking-canadas-best-and-worst-prime-ministers/

Agreed! Sometimes the only metric you can abide is "what worked", since politicians can't often (hardly ever) defend their "intentions".  No silver medal is awarded in politics for coming in second place! John Adams, in my opinion, was a great president of the United States--but with some exceptions.  He didn't get re-elected to the Presidency, likely because he made some principled, unpopular decisions.  (Of course, there were many other factors, too, but it doesn't change the fact he gave us a few long-term benefits brought about by principled, unpopular decisions!)

I didn't know the abolition of capital punishment in Canada was UNpopular, even at the time! (Wow...)

[Wilber]

GWB, Chamberlain, Trudeau, Mulroney and Chretien were not rulers. The first was answerable to Congress, the others to Parliament, all to the courts and to the people. We do not elect "Rulers"..

[JamesHackerMP]

I think I was pretty clear that leader and ruler can be commensurate.  You seem to misunderstand the American system, by the way.  The president is answerable to the people, not to Congress.  That's how a presidential democracy is wired. 

I like that we can have a frank and open exchange of views, but can we avoid getting into semantics? I think you already know exactly what I mean.

OK I'll humor you: what makes a good elected leader/Prime Minister/President (in a presidential system)/whatever.  Is that a little more specific?

Edited November 2, 2016 by JamesHackerMP

[Wilber]

That's better. Basically what eyeball said. Also someone who respects the democratic process by not trying game the system and can make hard decisions governing within the law and established ethics. In a parliamentary system, someone who respects the views of the people's elected MP"s and doesn't think his party leadership gives him license to do as he pleases. Stuff like that.

[JamesHackerMP]

That's an important point: "I won the election, the People are behind me, therefore I can do what I want" is a pretty disastrous thing.  A good ruler/leader/whatever respects the fact that you have to compromise no matter what, even if you have a majority of the electorate behind you.

[Argus]

I'm curious about why you used the term 'ruler' as opposed to 'leader'. The two are not synonyms.  Vladimir Putin is a good ruler in that he maintains absolute power and control, but I'm not sure he's much of a leader. A good leader leads. He or she has foresight, and makes the hard decisions for the future, rather than engaging in hand-wringing and indecision. And when I say 'for the future' I don't mean his or her own, but that of the nation, and I don't mean 'in the present electoral cycle' but for the future beyond that. What makes them good is intelligence, wisdom (not synonyms), selflessness, determination, courage in the face of odds, and integrity. 

A good leader doesn't bow to opinion, but attempts to change and shape that opinion with intelligent, forthright argument, and has the charisma and extroverted personality to do it. He or she doesn't run around to get in front of where the mob is going but tries to redirect it in a more sensible direction. And when they're wrong he or she doesn't waffle. He or she tells them so. And, of course, they admit when they're wrong, as well.

[JamesHackerMP]

They can be synonymous.  The context in which I am using ruler is the same as a political leader.  You're getting a little bogged down in the semantics.  It's obvious what I mean though, when I say ruler (in fact, I already provided examples above of what I meant, above).  If we get bogged down on what the trees look like, we're going to miss the view of the whole forest.  And what a pretty view it is!

That said however, I agree with your assessment, Argus.  Totally.

But the problem is, rulers (political leaders, whatever!!!) of some countries didn't win an election, which makes it harder for them to be "good" by our definition.  But should we write these rulers [whatever] off simply because they're not democratically elected? Can an absolute or nearly-absolute monarch do good things? After all, their democratically-elected counterparts aren't always shining examples of good government (Dick Nixon, Warren G Harding, etc) However, I'm willing to go out on a limb and bet that absolute rulers are far less likely to be "good" or "virtuous" in their jobs than their democratic confreres.  This is of course due to the nature of democracies that have free expression (incl a free press) being better able (though not 100% perfect) at exposing corruption.  Maybe democratic rulers/leaders are not necessarily "better" rulers, they just have an easier time looking like better people than dictators because they're working inside a better system? (I might remind you at this point Adolph Hitler was democratically-elected in the Weimar Republic, but that debate could open a whole different can of worms and associated caveats!)

The US recently relieved a particular country of its particularly strong dictator, a few years back (let's not mention who or where, lest we get sidetracked yet again).  It was seen as a mistake, because some political scientists, and others, believed that that particular country could only be held together by a "strong leader", perhaps even a cruel one.  This particular leader was a bastard, but then again, there were no electoral mechanisms in his country to allow him to achieve power through democratic means.  (After several military coups between 1958 and 1968, such mechanisms had long since become unavailable.)

If you've read The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli, he makes an interesting discussion on what he thinks a good ruler is.  He uses the word "virtu" (not virtue) to mean intelligence, strength and the SKILL of a leader.  Not just that he's a "nice guy".  In some countries, as I mentioned in the above paragraph, the democratic machinery and political culture just isn't available.

So what if you DID rule (or run) a country that was undemocratic.  Are you automatically a "bad" leader/ruler where democratic means are unavailable? or is it possible to be at least the best leader possible under the circumstances?

[Argus]

3 hours ago, JamesHackerMP said:

But the problem is, rulers (political leaders, whatever!!!) of some countries didn't win an election, which makes it harder for them to be "good" by our definition.  But should we write these rulers [whatever] off simply because they're not democratically elected?

No, of course not. Show me someone who does well for his country and I won't care if he's a democratic leader. I'm not terribly attached to democracy given what it's produced in the West, of late. But where are these non-democratic leaders? Putin has done very well for himself and his colleagues, but not so much for his country. Instead of rebuilding a shoddy infrastructure and making his people's lives better he's playing military games and enriching himself. The Saudis have been in charge over there with unlimited resources for a long time. What have they accomplished? They have a country filled with citizens who aren't capable of doing anything, from paving the roads to running their oil and gas systems to designing and putting up new buildings to repairing cars. They never learned stuff like that. They've never diversified their industries, and their citizens are largely uneducated - except in Islam. Nigeria has wasted its oil on corruption. From what I hear the King of Morocco is pretty good, given his resources, but I don't see a lot of great leaders/rulers out there anywhere, democratically elected or not.

3 hours ago, JamesHackerMP said:

Can an absolute or nearly-absolute monarch do good things?

Absolutely. But it's catch as catch can with monarchies. You might get a dedicated statesman, or you might get a self aggrandizing brutal dictator who cares only about himself. The one benefit of democracy is you can get rid of the latter, usually before he does too much damage. A number of Rome's emperors were pretty good, as were some of the European kings. Of course, some were awful...

3 hours ago, JamesHackerMP said:

If you've read The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli, he makes an interesting discussion on what he thinks a good ruler is.  He uses the word "virtu" (not virtue) to mean intelligence, strength and the SKILL of a leader.  Not just that he's a "nice guy".  In some countries, as I mentioned in the above paragraph, the democratic machinery and political culture just isn't available.

I've often said I expect the leader of my country to be a  mean SOB. I'm okay with that as long as he's a responsible, honest mean SOB. Harper was kind of like that. I don't think Trump is. He's just a mean SOB. Period.

3 hours ago, JamesHackerMP said:

So what if you DID rule (or run) a country that was undemocratic.  Are you automatically a "bad" leader/ruler where democratic means are unavailable? or is it possible to be at least the best leader possible under the circumstances?

 You are a good leader depending on what you have and what you accomplish with it. It doesn't matter how you took power. Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew did great things for his people, even if he wasn't all that democratic about it all the time.