by Gilbert Hannon

Created on: July 22, 2008

Identifying the best leader the world has had in modern times is a tough contest, because where a leader has taken steps to achieve truly great things, thye have at the same time been held back, either by commitment to policies which were disappointing - for example, John F Kennedy's Bay of Pigs fiasco - or else let down by a combination of circumstances and those surrounding them.

A leader will inevitably be judged by his ahcievments and what level of psotive change he or she manages to achieve, how in step they are with the feeling fo the population, and how long lasting that change will be. In this way, it is tempting to want to include figures such as Martin Luther King when tlakign about history's msot significant leaders, who managed to contirbtue to fundamental social change, despite never holding office.
One of the interesting aspects of this is, does a great leader need to be a great person? Winston Churchill, for example, managed to lead Great Britain and the world through a time of crisis, yet in his private life was an alcoholic and dismissive of many progressive ideas emerging at the time. The paradox of the achievments of Nelson Mandela's legacy is similarly two sided, starting out as a terrorist, but ending up as a great revolutionary.
Perhaps it is to the rest of the world that we need to look to find the greatest leaders, perhaps people who have been prevented from taking their rightful places - the Dalai Lama presents an interesting case, for he holds many admirable qualities of forbearance and a commitment to peace and fairness. However, he has been open to criticism that it is this very stance which has made it easier for the Chinese to control and terrorise Tibetans. In this way, a great man doesn't necessarily make a great leader. Potentially great leaders such as Aung San Suu Kyi, meanwhile, remain prevented from taking their rightful office, through fear of oppressive forces of the changes that will bring about.
It is precisely this kind of change, of course, that is needed in such countries - yet a revolutionary taking office in the United States, or Britain, would seem a threatening prospect, given the progress already achieved, (even if more is needed...)
The best leader, therefore, would be the individual best suited to the circumstances of the time, whilst being committed to fairness and equality over and above personal ambition. Will said leader please step forward...?

Learn more about this author, Gilbert Hannon.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.