h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

After all the discussions in "US Election" and similar forums about the qualities of the American presidential candidates, the question could now be posed to the community at large:

Who do you think is/was the best ever Head of State, and why. If no one has done the job satisfactorily yet, what qualities should he/she bring with them to earn this title?

I would kick off by saying that common sense should rule, as well as incorruptibility being one of the foremost virtues required. Could someone who knows more about it say whether Mary Robinson, Benatir Abuto, or Mahatma or Indira Ghandi would fit the bill and why the first ones that spring to my mind are women? Am I prejudiced?

I say elect Niccoló Machiavelli. Incorruptible? No. Honest? No. Sympathetic? Heavens no! Ideal tyrant? Yup.

Too bad the guy is dead.

Mary Robinson might not be the best executive head of state - given that she was/is totally in the thrall of the Irish clergy...
Charlie Haughey - now there's a head of state.

Unfortunately it takes great times of great strife to show up a great leader. It is arguable that Chruchill would not have been a great statesman had there been no war, and Ghandi's non violence is perfect for gaining independence but pretty poor at dealing with an integrated public transport system....then we come to the "eye of the beholder" effect. One man's terrorist is another mans freedom fighter is the common saying.....

That said, I think I would make a good head of state. Where do I apply?

It does depend on the times. You could claim that Elizabeth the First of England was a good head of state. She united the country, fought off the Spanish, oversaw the creation of an overseas empire and got rid of those pesky Catholics. All good things for the country at the time but she wasn't particularly nice or caring in the modern sense.
Also Mohandas Gandhi, if he had tried that sort of thing in the 1770s then he would have disappeared and never been heard of, unlike the somewhat aggresive George Washington.
Peter the Great and Catherine the Great, were not called Great because of what they did for their people as such now were they?
Oh and finally, different countries have different roles for a head of state, the Queen of the United Kingdom, blah, blah, not having the same political powers as the President of the United States of America.

however, was.
1 Without his victory at the battle of Ethandune (?Ashdown)we'd all be writing Danish, but,by agreeing to the Danes having half the real estate,he stopped the war.This was either 1 or 2 good things for the peasants.
2.He set up a library,encouraged travellers to come and tell him about their travels,and educated poor children (some girls as well)
3.He founded a navy and his army organisation meant that poor Englishmen had more of a say in their lives than after the Normans had overrun the place.
4.He spoke and wrote several languages.
5.It seems he couldn't cook, but nobody's perfect

"those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it." to quote a really quite popular author.

Is this any sort of recommendation for an hereditary monarchy?

On the grounds that every few generations you might get someone who doesn't want the job but turns out to be fairly good at it due to a lifetimes training.

Prince Charles? Oh dear, maybe not.
Prince Andrew or Edward? moving swiftly on after drying out trousers

Princess Anne? ...Oh well so mush for that theory


but let's face it anyone is better than 'Mad Spice' herself -
Margaret Thatcher


What would you do first if YOU were given the job?

Resign.

Is this question in any way inspired by the fact that it is 10 years since Maggie "resigned"?

IMH(B)O The best leader we never had was John Smith. I often wonder what things would be like if he hadn't passed away when he did.

Hugh Gaitskell was another great Labour leader who never quite made it to PM.

Machiavellian thoughts...

Machiavelli is a much-misunderstood character. Far from being a tyrant, he was actually a republican who believed that the only way for a leader to maintain authority was to secure the will of the masses first.

His argument about corruptibility was as follows... There are certain circumstances in which it is legitimate for a statesperson to tell deliberate untruths, if they honestly believe that in doing so they will further the cause of the state and its people. Mere personal gain, in Machiavelli's view, was not sufficient reason.

I'd say he's certainly a serious contender for the title 'Greatest Ever Master of Statecraft'. But I don't think he actually ever held a 'Head of State' post, as such. So (if I'm right about this) I guess he wouldn't really count for the purposes of this thread.

I nominate Boadicea (Boudicca, to be pedantic). Now there was a woman...

Unfortunately, I think John Smith is rapidly becomming officially "The Best Leader We Never Had". While I tend to agree, I think he is viewed a bit simplistically; all the good things Labour do were his idea, all the bad things, Blair's or Brown's. I'm sure he would have been just as human, if a little less arrogant than Blair, but perhaps an arrogant streak is required to keep that lot at least slightly in line.

"That government which governs least governs best."

When considering the best presidents, most people immediately turn to Washington, Lincoln, FDR, and Kennedy. Washington set all the precedents for the executive, Lincoln brought the country together for the first time, Roosevelt dealt with the worst crises in world history that managed to involve our country, and JFK navigated us safely through the worst days of the Cold War. If you ask me, they did too much. Who could be better?

Dwight D Eisenhower... the man ran this country for 8 years, and did absolutely nothing. The country entered a period of unprecedented wealth, success, and international reputation as a result. Would that he had managed to avoid completely embarrassing the country every other week, Bill Clinton might have qualified for this honor. He may have accomplished even less than Ike.

Me too

I read some stuff good ol´ Macchy had written about himself. It seems those books he wrote was pretty much just because he was ordered to. Not because he wanted to, he didn´t seem very ambitious politically either.

Actually Vlad Tepes, the guy that inspired Dracula, pretty much removed crime when he lived. It was by putting death penalty on just about anything, but still quite a feat.

Well, I would have to say Abraham Lincoln, because apart from all his historical achievements, he has the same birthday as me - he must be perfect!!

Timur the Lame had a nice way with dissidents and managed to solve overcrowding problems in many middle eastern cities. He also saved Western Europe from the Ottomans. Not a bad chap, so long as he stayed a long way away.

Maccy (Can't spell it, love the abreviation). I distinctly remember reading a long and invoved book whereby the author was trying to prove that while his real views were pretty republican as set out in the Discourses, he wrote the Prince as a sort of job application. Certainly he held a post with the republican Florintine government, and was closely assotiated with the head of that faction; was emprisoned when the Medicis came back; was let out after endless letter-writing and spent the next umpteen years petitioning to get a new job under the new regime (the Prince being written at this time). Didn't succeed though. And all the bits about warfare in the book are pants.

Anyway. My vote goes to the Patrician of Ank Moorpork, who juggles conflicting interests very well, but also knows when to bow to the pressures of change, or even give society a nuge in a new direction.
Failing him, Richeleau (I've got to get a hero whose name I can spell).

I mean, I'd like someone to come and make sweeping changes that would bring peace, prosperity and cable TV for all, but..... You have got to live in the realm of the possible, haven't you?.

I posted this back over in the US Election forum, but I'm backing Vaclav Havel. Anyone whose political philosophy is in part inspired by Lou Reed has got to be a nifty head of state. And the Velvet Revolution? Come on, what could be a better name, and a better way to be rid of the Soviet Union?

Although Lou and I have the same birthday, so I might be prejudiced here.