For the past centuries the political system has been the driving force for the development and sustainability of nations. Throughout the year’s historians has recognized and recorded some the world’s most powerful countries and nations that have ever existed. These powerful nations all had something in common they were under the rule of a leader. These leaders showed their skills in gaining the trust of their people or even used their power to gain the respect or trust needed to form their nations. Some of these leaders are Nelson Mandela, Fidel Castro, Mao Zedong and Dr. Eric Williams. There are many different types of leaders for examples Democratic and Autocratic, they all show different characteristics form each other. These leaders were all unique and in order to examine them an analysis is needed. The two main leadership styles which are going to be reviewed are the Democratic and Autocratic in a political environment. When that analysis is over a review of their characteristics will be done in order to find what makes them a great leader. In order to find out what are the characteristics of a great leader we must first define it according to the Oxford dictionary a leader is a person who guides or commands a group, organization, or country. “Leadership is the process through which a person sets a goal or a direction for one or more persons and makes them act together using their competences and with full dedication in order to get to the goal”. (Jacques, 1991)
To be a good leader there are some characteristics or traits needed to be more sufficient. The first one will be having Charisma and being able to motivate their followers, Charisma is a personal quality that gives an individual influence or authority over a large number of people. Motivation from a leader means that they must have some form of influence over others that will give them a strong reason to act or accomplish something. The second one will have to do with honesty and humility. Honesty basically defined is the quality of being truthful, having sincerity and frankness. Humility is simply being humble or modest when in the position of power. A third characteristic of a leader is being compassionate and cooperative with your followers. Leaders who focus on the needs of their followers tend to have a lot of support. The last characteristic a leader must have is knowledge and experience, when a leader is very knowledgeable in their position their efficiency tends to be high and with experience they would be more flexible able to overcome obstacles.
The characteristics above are all traits of what a democratic leader suppose to be. A democratic leader is one who distributes responsibility among the membership, empowering group members, and aiding the groups. A democracy is where power and civic responsibility are exercised by all adult citizens, or through their freely elected representatives, it is often correlated with freedom even though the two are not synonymous. Even though democracy is a set of ideals and principles about freedom it also consists of practices and procedures that have been molded through a long convoluted history. To get a better understanding of what Democracy is we have to look into its characteristics and how does it function. It is rest upon the principles of majority rule and individual rights. Democracies guard against all powerful central and decentralize governments to regional and local levels, understanding that all levels of government must be accessible to the people. Their basic functions are to protect basic human rights such as freedom of speech and religion secure the rights to equal protection and ensure all citizens are given the opportunity to participate in political, economic and cultural life of society. If the governments are to maintain a strong democratic country there must be tolerance, cooperation and compromise. “Intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true democratic spirit.” (Gandhi, Mahatma)
Autocratic leadership is the equivalent to dictatorship this leadership style is where the leaders have complete authority and their followers obeying the instructions of the leader without question or explanation for such instructions. As done before for the democratic leaders we will need to analyze the characteristics and functions. An autocratic leader closely supervises and controls the people under them. The Autocratic leader adopts a one way communication system. They do not consult with any power below them or give them a chance to provide their opinions no matter the potential benefit of such inputs. Autocratic leadership assumes that their followers motivation comes not through empowerment, but by creating a structured set of rewards and punishments. Some autocratic leaders use their power to issue threats, punishments and evoke fear to get work done. Proponents of the autocratic leadership style advocate it as an ideal method to extract high performance and efficiency without putting their followers under stress. They insist the close supervision and monitoring leads to a faster pace of progress with less slack, where the leader assumes full responsibility for the decisions and actions, ultimately creating reduced stress for subordinates. An example of an autocratic leader in the political environment would be Kim Jong-un. He is currently the supreme leader of North Korea; Kim has used his inherited power to take full control of North Korea by eliminating anyone who threatens his position. He is one of the few autocratic leaders in the world that are very dangerous because he uses his power to abuse and oppress his people to gain complete servitude
These two forms of leadership styles are both opposites of each other and have developed some of the world’s most powerful countries. Although some people prefer one leadership style over the other another analysis can be conducted using real life examples from the past and the present. At the end of this analysis we can see a more detailed reason as to why these leadership styles are so successful in the countries chosen. This analysis will be done with two different countries in two different time periods.
A growing body of evidence suggests that countries with more democratic governments as indicated by open and free elections, protection of civil liberties, lower levels of corruption, and freedom of the press dare associated with lower rates of mortality, healthier behaviors, and better self-rated health (Bobak et al., 2006; Ciccone et al., 2014; Klomp and de Haan, 2009). Governments are more responsive to popular demands for investments in education, public health, and social programs that reduce the harm associated with unemployment and poverty when they allow free and open elections that permit the press too openly scrutinize political decisions made. (Holmberg and Rothstein, 2011). Further, more democratic governments may seek to improve equality and to ensure that public benefits and opportunities for social mobility are shared widely, regardless of age, gender, race/ethnicity, religion, or socioeconomic status. Indeed, more democratic governments may support equal opportunity (including equal opportunities for health) by promoting suffrage for women and minorities, protecting civil liberties, and providing equal protection for all groups under the law. Democratic countries will seek to better the equality and to ensure that public benefits and opportunities for social nobility are shared widely, regardless of age, gender, race or ethnicity, religion and socioeconomic status.
First, we examine whether income inequality mediates the association between democracy and individual-health. More democratic nations may seek to reduce economic inequality by imposing progressive tax rates, regulating monopolies, implementing trade policies, or reducing corruption In turn, reduced economic inequality may result in better health by strengthening the middle and working classes, alleviating perceptions of relative deprivation, and increasing social cohesion Of the studies using international data, more than half find an inverse association between inequality and health Second, we examine whether public health infrastructures mediate the association between democracy and individual-level health. In response to public demand, more democratic and less corrupt nations may prioritize improvements in the public health infrastructure Such investments should result in improved sanitation, increased rates of vaccination, support for hospitals, the education and retention of doctors and nurses, and the effective regulation of food and drug safety. In turn, basic improvements in the public health infrastructure can result in substantial reductions in morbidity and mortality. Third, we test whether socioeconomic wellbeing mediates the association between democratic governance and individual-level health. At the country-level, more democratic nations may invest in education because the ability to make reasoned decisions, consider different positions, form opinions, and cast informed votes are central to being an active participant in a democratic society Further, education promotes the knowledge and skills that support a strong labor force and a productive economy. Efforts to increase educationdincluding investments in primary and secondary education, the promotion of literacy, and mandatory schooling lawsdshould result in a more productive labor force, higher standards of living, and, ultimately, better health .