This is question which seems to run through a number of stories we know you’ve been following and discussing. What kind of leader do you want? Do you want them to consult you as often as possible? Does it matter if they are charistmatic so long as their policies deliver?
Does a long-serving leader provide your country with a sense of stability? And do you mind what tone your leader takes with his or her opponents? These are some of the stories driving these questions…
1. The Iranian elections on Thursday.
This has jumped up the most read and most commented lists after the hostility between President Ahmadinejad and his would be successor. The voters are getting a choice between not just policies but styles as well.
2. Who next in Gabon?
President Omar Bongo ruled Gabon from 1967 until a few days ago. It’s unclear who take over though his son is tipped by some observers. I was interested to read that some people there wanted Pres Bongo gone, but now he has passed away, they say they miss the reassurance of his presence. Are there some benefits to long-term leaders? Do they provide a different and beneficial style of leadership?
3. Gordon Brown
The trouble he’s been in has been as much about his style of leadership as his policies. Is that fair? Does it really matter how he communicates if what he’s doing is effective?
4. Silvio Berlusconi
Now clearly the photos and the birthday party stories are hotly disputed, but the row about them both continues and it once again raises the split among Italians about the way that the PM leads Italy. His behaviour at the G20 photocall being one of many examples that make people love his personality or loathe it.
On top of this we have ongoing discussions about the contrast in leadershiop styles between Jacob Zuma and Thabo Mbeki, and Barack Obama and George Bush.
Do you want someone who takes decisions for your country or who consults all the time? Should they seem like one of us, or a person apart? (I can recall people saying in 2000 George Bush was someone they felt they could go for a beer with. But does that matter? And if it does, why?)
And does long-term service necessarily get in the way of citizens getting real influence?
(I remember many Libyans telling us on one show that they felt their system served them better than a regular democracy.)
OK, I’m off to bed. I’ll leave it to the team in London to expand on this. Let us know if you’re interested.
RSS feed
BBC World Have Your Say 
Conviction Vs Competency
The underlying principles of a conservative party are simple; appose, dispose, then simply make it up as we go along. All too often we turn on the TV or radio to hear conservative representatives blurting over dramatic oppositions to Labour policies. It is almost like a systematic strategy, appose a perfectly good policy to confuse the general public, then tell the general public you have a way of getting them out of their confused state. In quite real terms, Conservatives are the masters of conviction, the leaders of talking a good game, if only they had cognitive capacity to actually conjure up some alternative solution to Labour policies, then perhaps they would achieve a little bit more credibility.
Gordon Brown is a man of competence and action. He spends his time acting, not spraffing and going on an ego trip about who’s dad is bigger than who’s, which seems to be the whiney conservative way. Brown has done a fantastic job to date and this can be proven after the recent IMF announcement that congratulated the UK on its’ proactive paradigm towards tackling the recession. Further to this the IMF confirmed that the UK is on course for a sustainable recovery and our economy is likely to kick back into gear. This is truly significant and why would you not want this man leading your country. When your voting you really must ask yourself whether you want conviction or competency, that is to say, do you want a rambling over emotional conservative damaging the good work that has been achieved tus far, or give labour the opportunity to build on these fantastic successes.
Ideally, it should be someone who actually listens to the public. And is willing to take actual risks to bring about change.
Unfortunately, politicians only care about maintaining their power. Politics is a “contact’ sport. You can do and say anything you want in the States because that’s “politics.” And short of locking them in their office until they change, they won’t.
Is it too idealistic to suggest a good leader should be someone with intelligence, wisdom and a social conscience?