The effectiveness of a country s leaders is best measured by examining the well being of that country s citizens

The author contends that the effectiveness of a country’s leaders is best measured by examining the well being of its citizens. A country’s leaders have a responsibility to ensure the general welfare of their people. Given that the effectiveness of nation’s leaders is best evaluated through their fulfilment of this duty which involves holistic examination of citizens’ well-being, the statement is mostly agreeable. Yet, during such examination one must also consider variables that are beyond the control of a leader’s abilities but can still influence public welfare.

The fundamental reason to support the author’s assertion is simply that the performance of an individual in a given role is evaluated by his success in executing the assigned task. A country’s leaders have the entrusted responsibility to assure well-being of its citizenry. Therefore, their effectiveness can naturally be evaluated by their success in getting the job done. No leader in history was regarded effective without striving for the cause and welfare of his followers. Even during middle-ages or before, when the popular criteria to measure a leader’s success was his might, wealth and influence, only those who strived for the well-being of their subjects were considered as heroes such as Cyrus - The Great, Queen Elizabeth I, etc.

Moreover, even if personal traits of decision making abilities, far sightedness, wisdom, etc. were the metrics for a leader’s effectiveness, those must also reflect in his followers’ well-being. A competent leader alleviates the sufferings of his people by framing effective socioeconomic policies. For a country’s denizens, he assures secure income by providing employment, health and wellness by building healthcare infrastructures, internal peace and external security through proper law enforcement and diplomacy and so on. Therefore, examination of these aspects of public is also an indicator of a leader’s personal competence.

The statement further finds support in the fact that traditionally used objective criteria fails to consider all the important elements of public welfare. The economic growth, for instance, has been the most widely employed parameter to measure a leader’s effectiveness because the countries with lowest growth are usually the ones found to be most poor. Yet, there are example of several countries, like India, where high GDP is achieved at the expense of local industries, resources and employment opportunities. To account for the inefficacy of this criterion, the UN introduced Human Development Index (HDI) in the 80s which considers the income equality, education and life expectancy of general populace. Yet, there are many middle-eastern countries which boast high HDI but their leaders are criticized for the lack of freedom and civil rights in their countries.

However, while examining the well-being of nation’s population one must also be considerate for the factors that can influence it but are beyond a leader’s control. At times, there are circumstances when despite the sincerest efforts of political leaders the general well-being of country is negatively affected. For example, the COVID-19 pandemic rendered many people jobless but the leaders cannot be held responsible for the same. Similarly, many aspects of citizens’ well-being are a mutual responsibility of both the leaders and the beneficiaries. For example, while leaders can provide good health care facilities, the onus is on the people to follow a healthy lifestyle to ensure protection from myriad habit related diseases. Similarly, though leaders can introduce progressive laws for rights of women, minorities and vulnerable groups; absolute harmony and equality in the country cannot prevail unless the society changes its regressive social behaviour and mindset in relation to these group.

In conclusion, the duty of a country’s leaders is to guarantee the general public welfare and measurement of their effectiveness, like for other professionals, can aptly be evaluated by their performance of the assigned task. This performance evaluation then entails holistic examination of all the features of citizen’s well-being as asserted by the author. However, during such examination, one must also consider factors and circumstances that are outside a leader’s control but negatively impacts the well-being of citizens.