The never-ending debate on who shapes history – “great men” or the indomitable march of events (so-called “determinism”) – has not come up with a winner. There is now some consensus that some leaders play a greater role than others within the context of developments in their countries and internationally, such as in the economy, global events, their country’s demographics and so on. It appears that where institutions are weak, autocratic leaders play a greater role in things and, equally, that strong institutions allow a country to continue on its course without interruption, irrespective of who leads it.

In recent years, however, we have seen that some leaders play a disproportionately great role, for good or ill, irrespective of the state of their country and its institutions. Therefore, it would be useful if we could keep a balance sheet on leaders, with the sum of their positive and negative impact on things. This could lead to an evaluation rating that would depend on what leaders achieved with regard to what they could have achieved – in their people’s general wellbeing, in crisis management, in the robustness of their democracy, in relations with other countries, in dealing with domestic opposition, etc.

Donald Trump is an extreme example of a leader, in that he challenges all the structures and institutions in his country (and, in Trump’s case, the world). It is as if an invisible force is trying to uncover how much damage can be wrought when personal impunity is combined with a superpower’s incomparable collective might. In this case, one could compare the health of various sectors in the United States before Trump’s presidencies and where it stands today.

Of course, such an evaluation would always be loaded by the political convictions of citizens and of those doing the evaluating. But there are objective indices, such as the economy, the death of people at the hands of the authorities, the country’s image abroad, involvement in wars, the percentage of lies told, the violation of laws, institutions and alliances, among others. These would make it possible to evaluate whether a leader’s impact was positive or negative (with a rating of +3 or -2, for example).

In our “neighborhood,” we could evaluate Recep Tayyip Erdogan by contrasting Turkey’s economic and military growth with the reversals imposed on the democratic system and social justice, with the capture and further undermining of weak institutions, with the use of violence in foreign affairs, with the personal obsessions that cost the economy and citizens so much.

A “measurable” evaluation – something like a handicap in horse racing and golf – by those participating in the public debate, could be the basis for voters to form rational opinions, could rein in (to some extent) otherwise uncontrollable leaders and could provide their domestic rivals with credible targets to improve citizens’ lives.

Home

The leadership handicap