Last week, in my AP European history class we had a discussion/debate of wether as a leader "Is it better to be loved or hated?" In my opinion, I believed that it is better to be loved. Throughot history we have seen evidence of how being loved has done better for a nation than being hated. For example, The Independent City state of Urbino was well known cultural and intellectual center of the Renaissance. Why? because the people in the city actually liked him because of how he (Ferderigo da Montefeltro) ruled. It is said that the Ferderigo could walk the streets of his city GUARDLESS (its a big deal) becuase the people loved him that much. With that said compare that the other leader who got over thrown recently like in Mexico (I may be wrong but this is just what i am going from i think i heard recently).
Being hated sucks(of course) becuse if you are a crapper ruler/leader i am pretty sure people out there are gonna be constantly out to get you or kill you. That is why being a good ruler has its perks, u get peace, less revolts, less people trying to kill you etc. Thus with this evidence being loved is truly a way better way to go than being feared because being feared would have chances of some not so good outcomes if you get what I mean.
No comments:
Post a Comment