The effectiveness of a country's leaders is best measured by examining the well-being of that country's citizens.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position

The author avers that the litmus test for the measure of effective governance is the combined welfare of all its denizens and I concur with the author. Traditionally, economic welfare of nations has been used as the default variable to measure the effectiveness of its leaders. The difficulty of measuring other aspects such as social and economic equality, physical well being and security, civil rights and liberties granted and the extent to which they are being exercised; has lead to nations adopting the most objective criteria for assessment i.e. economic growth.

Economic development has the power to reduce poverty and to solve other social problems faced by the nation. Many countries that are mired in poverty and hunger are the ones that have amongst the lowest levels of economic growth. The importance of economic growth showcasing the effectiveness of political leaders can then not be undermined. However, economic growth alone does not indicate that the denizens are living in conditions conducive for their growth and happiness. Many developing nations such as India, have a high level of economic growth but widespread disparities and ills that plague it. Growth is often achieved at the cost of inequality, unemployment, death of local industries and plundering of resources. Nations whose leaders have such myopic vision cannot be classified as effective.

No doctrinaire leader has ever been regarded in the annals of history as an asset to the nation. The image and perception of the leader are strongly correlated with the changes he or she has effected for its general populace, for the struggles he or she has pioneered on behalf of the citizens. The examples of Abraham Lincoln and Nelson Mandela on the one hand and those of Saddam Hussein and MunnamarGadaffi on the other are testaments to this. In early 1980s, Libya had a higher per capita income than even some developed economies and even the highest HDI in Africa as stated by the UN, however the lack of freedom and stringent surveillance under which the Libyans lived can by no stretch of the imagination be classified as well-being, nor can Gadaffi be called an effective leader.

For overall well being of the people, it is imperative that freedom of speech and expression and the right to equal opportunity and non-discrimination are protected. In the absence of these civil liberties, thought and ideologies cannot thrive. It is also crucial to note the progress being made by the citizens in various spheres of life. These provide a good measure of the growth and progress of all. For instance, artists cannot thrive in a restricted or restrained environment. Freedom of thought and expression and secular values are necessary for art to flourish. These same conditions are also crucial for each individual to thrive. The achievements of people in their respective fields then becomes a yardstick to measure whether the government is tolerant of incipient ideas, and whether means in terms of financial and infrastructural support are available.

In conclusion, the efficacy of a leader undeniably rests on the well being of the citizens. This well being is most holisitically measured when economic, social and civil aspects are taken into consideration. Only a leader who succeeds in ensuring all these in balanced quantities to its citizens, would be regarded as a stellar leader.