The topic for my speech is “Is being benevolent, decisive, and

authoritative necessary for being a good leader”. To begin with

let me outline how we are going to address this topic. I will
discuss these characteristics one at a time, give some examples
etc. Then we discuss what really a good leader is and then try to
make a conclusion on that topic.
So, now, starting with benevolence. The Cambridge learner’s
dictionary defines benevolence as being kind, generous and
helpful. So a perfect example in my view is Salah-ud-din Ayubi.
He fought against king Richard in the early crusades. A
remarkable man with amazing ability to be kind even to his
enemies, Salah-ud-din Ayubi once stopped a battle because he
felt that the other side needed a drinks break. Mind you, this was
not a cricket match he was playing this was an outright battle
and to stop a battle to give the enemy a break is a marvelous
example of kindness. He himself even went to heal king Richard
when the latter was hurt fighting against him. And even though
his kindness, you may say reached levels of being absurd, he did
win the war in the end. To top it off, he was obviously loves and
respected by his enemies. So a successful benevolent leader.
However, on the other side, we have Adolf Hitler. Ruthless,
merciless and cruel even on the best of his days. Not all that
benevolent. Hitler killed over 6 million Jews in World War 2. Shot
the entire cricket team for incompetence. So, cruel not only to
enemies but to his own people as well. But very successful.
Hitler’s battle strategies are used even today( almost 65 years
after his death). His defenses were so organized that he himself
survived 18 assassination attempts. He conquered lands and he
provided the Germans with what they had been looking for since
World War 1 i.e. hope and as Napoleon once said “A leader is a
dealer of hopes”. An evil hope of conquering the world but hope
none-the-less. And demoralized, as the Germans were, I think
that out aside all his military genius, that hope was his biggest
accomplishment because as John Quincy Adams once said “If
your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more
and become more, you are a leader”. Let me remind you that for
now I am only discussing qualities, conclusion will be drawn in the
end because the real answer in my view runs a lot deeper than to
be defined by just three qualities.
So coming to being authoratative. Authoritative or Dictatorship
enumerates to according to the command of a situation. So an
authorative leader is one who, more or less, rules with an iron
fist. A good example is Napoleon Bonaparte. Born in 1769, he
became the leader, or rather, dictator of France in 1799 in
perhaps the most astonishingly quick rise to power in history. He
formed a so called democratic government but kept most of the
power. He could declare war or peace, make laws and he pretty
much had absolute power. Ruled with an iron fist, crushed
rebellions and under him France became a powerful country.
Under his rule the French conquered Italy, parts of Australia and
confederation of Rhine. While Spain and Helvetica Republic
depended on French aid and the rest of the Austrian empire
decided to ally itself with France. So in Napoleon, we have an
authoritative leader with a lot of success.
For good leaders who were not authoritative, whatever little
research I did came up with more or less nothing. Reason being
that if a leader is not authoritative the country lacks unity and leads to
disputes and it ends usually in one to two ways: civil war or the
king being overthrown. An example is the last Mughal emperor
Bahadur Shah Zafar. He had little or no authority. He was unable
to even keep his army united in the war of independence of 1857.
So Bahadur Shah, who had been proclaimed as an emperor of
whole of India, was overthrown. He was arrested from Humayun's
tomb, in Delhi, where. Few would argue that he was a successful
leader. So here we do have a conclusion. A good leader is more
or less, always authoritative. If not, he is either deemed a
complete failure as a leader or he goes down as a controversial
leader in history.
So finally coming to talk about decisiveness, being decisive
means to have the ability to make quick decisions. For example,
take Alexander the great. Conquered almost half the world and
died what many deem an untimely death or he may have gone
even further. Alexander the Great defeated an army of 400000
men with his army of 25000. That gives a ratio of 1:16 against
him. No gambler would have bet on him. Yet because of his
ability to make quick decisions, he quickly formulated a strategy
and won the battle decisively. While decisiveness is an important
quality, it should not lead to obstinacy as was the case with
Napoleon Bonaparte. His army generals advised him not to
invade Russia but his absurd level of decisiveness barred him
from accepting the fact that there in fact was a land he could not
conquer. He invaded with an army of 600000 men. One of the
largest armies ever assembled. The result: utter humiliation and
defeat as his army could not stand the cold Russian weather.
Only a small number of those 600000 survived. So while
decisiveness is good, as with everything in this world, it has to be
balanced.
While you all have borne with me through this talk, I would like
you to bear with me a few more moments as I address the earlier
mentioned question again. What makes a good leader? In the
beginning we gave examples of Adolf Hitler and Salah-ud-din
Ayubi. Neither was a failure as a leader. But imagine a leader like
Adolf Hitler ruling in a time of peace. The “peace” would not last.
He was a conqueror and a mercyless human being. He would, in
our view, start a war just to gain more land. So he would not be
successful as a leader as he would be disrupting a peaceful
environment with war terror. However a man like Salah-ud-din
Ayubi would be perfect in times of peace. So, here we have
another factor contributing to the success of a leader i.e. timing.
Every time frame requires a different type of leader. Whether a
person comes to power at a time suited to his, lets say style of
ruling, does influence his level of success.
Basically, what I am trying to get here is that in our view
Benevolence depends on time. If you come at a time of peace
then benevolence will make people loyal to you and your rule will
be prosperous. However, in times of war, it is of as a torch with
dead batteries in the dark. It is there, but is more or less useless.
Decisiveness is also important but a good leader must also know
how to accept others ideas and to keep an open mind instead of
just deciding on one thing and then saying that come hell or what
may I will carry it out. That was a mistake even Napoleon made
And being authoritative is more or less necessary unless the
country has a true democratic system of government which is
very rare. Often, there is only one person in the limelight, calling
all the shots while others are only there to, as they say, keep the
seats warm. So, if it has to be this way, that there will be only one
leader, then he has to e authoritative.
So the conclusion in my view, in one line is that benevolence
depends on time, decisiveness must be kept in check while being
authoritative is pretty much necessary.
Also, in our view, a good leader must also be just and honest in
his dealings. If not, corruption thrives and while those in power
continue to get richer while the poor get poorer, there is civil
unrest and discontent. A leader must also be an orator who can
rally people onto his side, and represent his people well on
international forums. As Dwight Eisenhower once said “leadership
is the art of getting someone else to do something you want done
because he wants to do it”. Basically, what I am trying to get here
is that leadership can not be defined by just 3 qualities. However
is being benevolent, authoritative and decisive important? I said
it before that, in my view being authoritative is more or less
necessary unless the country has a true democratic system of
government which is very rare. Often, there is only one person in
the limelight, calling all the shots while others are only there to,
as they say, keep the seats warm. So, if it has to be this way, that
there will be only one leader, then he has to e authoritative.
Decisiveness is also important but a good leader must also know
how to accept others ideas and to keep an open mind instead of
just deciding on one thing and then saying that come hell or what
may I will carry it out. That was a mistake even Napoleon made.
Benevolence depends on time. If you come at a time of peace
then benevolence will make people loyal to you and your rule will
be prosperous. However, in times of war, it is of as a torch with
dead batteries in the dark. It is there, but is more or less useless.
So the conclusion in my view, in one line is that benevolence
depends on time, decisiveness must be kept in check while being
authoritative is pretty much necessary.

“leadership is the art of getting

someone else to do something you
want done not because he wants to
do it”