Is it better for a leader to be loved or feared?

46 posts

Flag Post

I have this question in US and World History Class: Is it better for a leader to be loved or feared?

I think a little bit of both.

You don’t really want a leader to be loved too much, because some people will try to take that power away from you. And you also don’t want him to be feared too much…If he is hated, then some bad tings would happen and it would get to people.

What do you think?

 
Flag Post

Rule by love is always preferable to rule by fear.

I’d rather have the people of my country loving me and supporting me in the case of a coup than having my people out for my head in a coup.

 
Flag Post

You should ask Machiavelli.

it is best to be both feared and loved; however, if one cannot be both it is better to be feared than loved

 
Flag Post

Depends on who he is leading.

I think for a democratic republic, like the US, rule by love is just about necessary, because you need to be elected. For more dictatorial nations, rule by fear my work better. Especially if the country is loosely unified to begin with. A loved, weak leader may be usurped by those with less pure intentions. So if the leader is good and really has the best interests of the people in mind (and is skilled enough to bring them to fruition), it may be useful for him to pretend to be a force to be feared, just to maintain his power.

 
Flag Post

i would say loved

 
Flag Post

What about the third option, hated?

See: George W Bush

 
Flag Post

Fear leads to hate.
It is not uncommon that past dictators die either alone, in prison or are sentenced to death.

I would say “loved”.

 
Flag Post

Are you leading for your benefit or for your followers?

If your own, then feared. If for their’s, then loved.

 
Flag Post

why lead at all?

if you truely respect the people you have faith in their own decision making abilities

 
Flag Post

So if you love your children you should leave them in the street?

 
Flag Post

Loved, but not viewed as weak. You need to show your authority in such a way that your people don’t fear you, but respect you. Fear leads to hate, hate leads to revolution.
I see pmr is still supporting anarchy…

 
Flag Post

I am indeed :D

hence:

pmr is right, pmr is right, bow to the Invisible Pink Unicorn, drink Pepsi, smoke Morbolo

 
Flag Post

They’re both ways but the fastest way to lead a nation is by fear.

 
Flag Post

I rule my 3 pet kittens with fear.

 
Flag Post

you evil person!

 
Flag Post

Hmm. This seems similar to a discussion I had in Gov/Pol, about whether it is better to have power or authority. I would always go for love or authority over fear or power. With fear your only mandate to rule is because people are too afraid to stand up to you. It is far more effective in the long term to be loved. Just look at the Romanovs. Nicholas II attempted to repress the people using the secret police and the army and he met with bloody revolution, something rarely attributed to beloved leaders.

 
Flag Post

Ruling by fear gets quick results, but doesn’t bring about change. Ruling by love is the only way to bring about change in a population, and to truly motivate it to do its best.

For the best examples of this, take a look at your local moderators. The best of them enforce rules merely through asking players to respect them. And they do. And they generally follow. Ruling with an iron fist will never pacify a troll. Though unfortunately, it may be the only option to deal with some people, there will always be someone who is capable of reforming as an individual under the proper application of concern and respect.

 
Flag Post

Ruling by fear gets quick results, but doesn’t bring about change. Ruling by love is the only way to bring about change in a population, and to truly motivate it to do its best.

How does it not bring about change?

If you said I’d kill you if you don’t face the sun most people will face the sun. Therefore there has been change.

And fear, FTW!

 
Flag Post

This reminds me of work, if people hate it, they will do just enough to not get fired, if they love their work however, they will overachieve in it

So if a leader rules by fear, the people might still do what they are told, but with resentment, maybe even sabotage some things.

 
Flag Post

if the leader is good and really has the best interests of the people in mind (and is skilled enough to bring them to fruition), it may be useful for him to pretend to be a force to be feared, just to maintain his power.

This quote by damijin really sums up my beliefs in this matter.

 
Flag Post

If you said I’d kill you if you don’t face the sun most people will face the sun. Therefore there has been change.

That’s not a change so much as a temporary alteration of behavior. What happens when you turn around?

Now, convince me that facing the sun will help me grow as a person and achieve…well, then I’ll face the sun happily all day long, whether you’re watching me or not. Maybe some people won’t. But most will.

 
Flag Post

That’s not a change so much as a temporary alteration of behavior.

In other words a temporary change of behaviour.

What happens when you turn around?

I won’t.

Now, convince me that facing the sun will help me grow as a person and achieve…well, then I’ll face the sun happily all day long, whether you’re watching me or not. Maybe some people won’t. But most will.

Much harder to convince you of that.

 
Flag Post

Much harder to convince you of that.

Indeed. It’s harder to rule well by love, but in the end, the results are better.

 
Flag Post

Looking back, most of the rulers who have ruled by fear in the 20th century, were eventually faced revolution of some kind. In contrast, the people who remained in power for longest and who are more respected now were the people who ruled legitimately.

 
Flag Post

Be kind when you can, and cruel when you must.
And, change can come through fear. Just look at Stalin. He managed to industrialize Soviet into a modern nation, and everybody feared him, as he was, an angry lunatic.