The Role of a Leader

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

What, out of the above options, do you think is the primary area that a leader/government of a nation has a responsibility to?

I believe that the primary responsibility of the leader is looking after the nation. We voted for him, or at least are ruled by him, and he therefore should viciously look after our best interests. If those interests are also good for the rest of the world, very well. If not, too bad - vote in your own leader that will make things better for you.

[KarlXII]

We need a "Both" option. I believe a government's responsibility is to govern it's people, but also to maintain and protect interests throughout the world.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

We need a "Both" option. I believe a government's responsibility is to govern it's people, but also to maintain and protect interests throughout the world.

That's why I said primary responsibility - I intentionally left out a "Both" option. Is the first duty of a government to the people it governs or to the wider world? Also, maintaining and protecting interests, in the sense I see it (feel free to correct me if you meant something else), are generally done for the country, not for the wider world. The question isn't who the government should govern, but who it should look after more.

[PBI]

The primary responsibility of a democratic government is to do whatever the people elected it to do.

If that is to ruthlessly and cold-heartedly look after the national interest to the exclusion of all else, so be it, but not very many successful parties stand on such a platform. If the people have voted for a government which promises to do the right thing for the whole world rather than just the nation itself, however, and that government proceeds to expand the GDP by, say, waging aggressive war for territorial expansion or control of resources, then that government has failed in its duty.

Also, there is the small matter that because the electorate are ultimately responsible for electing the government, if the government commits despicable acts abroad, it is causing the electorate to have blood on its hands.

The choice is not as stark as the one you have presented. A firm and unequivocal "Gah!" from me.

[Louis VI the Fat]

When you are walking on the street, to what standard do you hold yourself:

- I treat other people with dignity and respect
- It's me, myself and I. Don't like me smoking in the metro? Too bad. Go sit somewhere else. Don't like the noise from my ghettoblaster? Go .... yourself.

If one thinks the first standard is appropriate public behaviour, even for a two-bit street punk, then shouldn't this certainly be the standard for a leader?


In other words, no, a fuhrer - oops: leader - who only looks viciously after my own country's interest is well below my standard of appropriate behaviour.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

When you are walking on the street, to what standard do you hold yourself:

- I treat other people with dignity and respect
- It's me, myself and I. Don't like me smoking in the metro? Too bad. Go sit somewhere else. Don't like the noise from my ghettoblaster? Go .... yourself.

Not a good comparison. A better one is if you hire someone as a bodyguard - does he protect everyone on the street, or just you, like he was hired to? If his primary duty isn't to me, I fire him.

[KarlXII]

Not a good comparison. A better one is if you hire someone as a bodyguard - does he protect everyone on the street, or just you, like he was hired to? If his primary duty isn't to me, I fire him.

So it's more of a:

"Help that man took my purse!"

*Bodyguard starts off*

"NOT SO FAST!"

[CrossLOPER]

Not a good comparison. A better one is if you hire someone as a bodyguard - does he protect everyone on the street, or just you, like he was hired to? If his primary duty isn't to me, I fire him.

That sounds like having to do more with military aid.

[Ronin]

Not a good comparison. A better one is if you hire someone as a bodyguard - does he protect everyone on the street, or just you, like he was hired to? If his primary duty isn't to me, I fire him.

His primary duty is to your protection...but...in the execution of his primary duty he has no right to disregard and endanger everybody else on the street.

[Navaros]

None of the above.

The primary responsibility of a government is to the LORD God.

This also serves the world and humanity as a whole, and the people of the nation, but it requires to do the exact opposite of what they want (other than the few who are legitimately born again spiritually, for whom it would be what they want). Since the sin nature of all mankind makes it inherently evil by default, thus, the majority will always naturally choose evil options given the choice. A responsible government would realize this, and thus, ignore and do the opposite of 'the will of the people' at any & every time it is contrary to the LORD God's Will.

[Banquo's Ghost]

None of the above.

The primary responsibility of a government is to the LORD God.

This also serves the world and humanity as a whole, and the people of the nation, but it requires to do the exact opposite of what they want (other than the few who are legitmately born again spiritually, for whom it would be what they want). Since the sin nature of all mankind makes it inherently evil by default, thus, the majority will always naturally choose evil options given the choice. A responsible government would realize this, and thus, ignore and do the opposite of 'the will of the people' at any & every time it is contrary to the LORD God's Will.

So your exemplar would be the Pope or Ahmedinejad? (Yes, I know they have different gods, but I understand that's a mere technicality).

Anyway, you'll be EMFM's favourite contributor now, making his case for the Divine Right of Kings.

[Navaros]

So your exemplar would be the Pope or Ahmedinejad? (Yes, I know they have different gods, but I understand that's a mere technicality).

Anyway, you'll be EMFM's favourite contributor now, making his case for the Divine Right of Kings.

Well, certainly not the Pope. I have got in trouble on this site before for articulating 'my thoughts' about the Pope so I guess I can't repeat them as frankly & honestly for the sake of this post. But he definitely doesn't fit into what I was talking about in my previous post at all.

Your post is bringing up a sticky area. Some people in authority pay lip service to God's Will, but don't actually believe it or obey it. Persons such as this are not qualified for doing, and do not even do with the limited power they have now, what my previous post entails.

I do respect Ahmadinejad. He seems to have a sincere belief in doing God's Will that he never compromises, no matter how unpopular that makes him amongst certain groups of people. That's the way to do it. I used to have an amazing quote from him in my sig on this site that I figured I'd better remove when the "no politics in sigs" rule came into place (I voted against that [very bad IMO] rule because I knew it would needlessly sabotage my amazing sig ).

It was:

"How can you justify seeing a mother away from her home, her children? Why don't they respect family values in the West?"

[CountArach]

Why can't it do both?

[JR-]

to its people.

[Kralizec]

"How can you justify seeing a mother away from her home, her children? Why don't they respect family values in the West?"

Was that in reference to the female British sailor (and some others) they briefly captured?

[Fragony]

The people it governs directly are not the primary but the only responsibility. Sometimes it involves others.