The perceived greatness of a political leader.

[Karla Calderon]

“The perceived greatness of any political leader has more to do with the challenges faced by that leader than with any of his or her inherent skills and abilities.”

Write a response in which you examine your own position on the statement. Explore the extent to which you either agree or disagree with it, and support your reasoning with evidence and/or examples. Be sure to reflect on ways in which the statement might or might not be true, and how this informs your thinking on the subject.

The political arena has always been one of the toughest fields where to develop. Those who intend to become leaders on this area ought to have certain innate qualities to make possible their success. Even though it is true that the challenges faced by a leader can determine at a great degree his perceived greatness, his skills and abilities are more crucial in building up such perception. In this way, skills and abilities determine the way of facing a challenge, outstanding features can draw more attention than challenges faced; and while problems faced can be forgotten, aptitudes will always remain palpable along with the person.

To begin with, a political leader bases his strategy to face a challenge on his talent and abilities. Even if there may be assessors advising him, in the end, he is the one pointed out to take the final decision. Regardless of the complexity of the issue, what is valued is the effectiveness of the problem solving. An illustration of this can be a prime minister who is particularly skillful to make conciliate the opposing parts. His shrewdness will be equally praised in both amending a disagreement inside his team of ministers and resolving a territorial dispute with a neighboring country. Whereas some may argue that an international deal is more transcendental, it would be illogical to assert that the prime minister deserves credit more due to the size of the deal that for his ability itself to make agree both parts.

Besides, outstanding features can draw more attention than challenges faced. It is a general rule about the appreciation of human value: a person is worthy primarily for his own personality and characteristics, and not for how much he has faced or acquired. For instance, Margaret Thatcher, the great British prime minister of the twentieth century, is remembered and admired primarily for her unbreakable will, self-confidence and accuracy for confronting and solving government issues. Even famous milestones in the career of this woman, like the war of the Falkland Islands and the battle against trade unions, have in common her witness and capability. Consequently, these two challenges are remembered as great due to the cleverness Mrs. Thatcher had to manage them.

Additionally, while problems faced can be forgotten, aptitudes will always remain palpable along with the person. Since human memory is fragile, even remarkable events are in danger of falling into oblivion. In contrast, the political leader will always show his greatness whenever he goes, and that is what will constantly feed the conceptualization people have of him. Moreover, those who impugn the veracity of a past event to judge a person, are going to be persuaded with his ongoing gestures and behavior.

In summary, the perceived greatness of a political leader is based primarily on his skills and abilities rather than on the relevance of the deals he has confronted. The aptitudes of a person are the root of any decision or action taken; they determine the success or defeat when coping up with a challenge, no matter the degree of importance it has.