The debate "Is a feared leader better than a loved leader" was started by
February 15, 2018, 11:45 am.
19 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 50 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
Samlum17 posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
chris3412 posted 1 argument, historybuff posted 2 arguments, Mediator posted 1 argument, DrMrDaniel posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
sabrina, chemikilsm0ke, Samlum17 and 16 visitors agree.
emotions_suck, MayaC17, chasediedrich1, Yiyi, Mediator, DrMrDaniel, nope, fatin, KateLynn and 41 visitors disagree.
you are equating 2 very different things. you can fear someone you don't hate. fear does not mean tyranny, it does not mean ruthless or hated. it means that people are afraid to cross them. and pretty well all successful leaders have some level of it.
and revolutions tend to happen when people stop fearing their leader.
If people strongly dislike their leader, eventually the people will question why they follow the leader's authority and will revolt. This was shown in many revolutions throughout history.
A feared leader has more control over those he or she is leading.
fear doesn't mean Tyranical. a criminal should fear committing a crime. not because the police are evil dictators, but because they enforce the law.
no leader gains power or holds it for long without instilling a bit of fear. that doesn't mean they kill people.
A feared leader kills people. A loved one saves them. What is better?
Fear should never be a factor for a leader. You can respect a leader without fearing him or her but it is harder for someone to respect what they fear. At the very most one will acknowledge that the person they fear is their leader but they will be disgusted by them. Fear and power are not unanimous nor are they interchangeable.
any leader needs both. you have to respect them use their power justly, and fear the results of breaking the law.
if the population doesn't trust or respect the government they lose validity and won't be able to rule effectively. if the people don't fear the consequences of not following the law then they really rule either.
this isn't exactly a black and white answer, but the phrase speak softly and carry a big stick comes to mind
The nice leader is obeyed without killing the people or threatening them with death or imprisonment. If the people have to hide from the nice leader in order to manifest some crime and bloodshed, he is actually succeeding. Why does a leader need to spy on his own people and hunt them down if they are too cowardly to do crimes where he can see them?
You need to meet fear and love in the middle. A tyrannical ruler that relies on threats and fear will be hated by the people. A ruler that is too nice will be pushed around by its people making their rule obsolete.