Claim The surest indicator of a great nation must be the achievements of its rulers artists or scientists Reason Great achievements by a nation s rulers artists or scientists will ensure a good life for the majority of that nation s people

Politics, arts and sciences are the three cornerstones elevating the lives of the masses. An incorruptible and listening government, overflowing of culture and myriad of technological marvels simplifying our lives, these are great achievements which will better the lives of the majority and contented citizens are symbolic of a great nation. While there are certain merits to this argument, I am of the opinion that the achievements of the nation's rulers, artists or scientists that will benefit the majority are not indicative of a great nation for two reasons.

Firstly, an achievement by a single group is not sufficient to define a nation as great. A nation can have a ruler with outstanding achievement, but still not categorize as great. For example, the achievement of Mr Lee Kuan Yew is undisputed as the one of the most impactful among all politicians; as the Prime Minister, he transformed Singapore from a forsaken island colony to one of the wealthiest nations of the world. Despite his political achievement and the wealth of Singaporeans, Singapore is still not considered a great nation. A great nation needs more than great politicians, artists, or scientists. I would argue a combination of all the following is what defines a great nation. For example, Germany is considered a great nation because the achievements of good governance, rich culture and technological prowess. Each aspect is critical in defining a great nation as such the surest indicator of a great nation is not the achievements of its rulers, artists or scientists, but the combination of achievements from all three groups.

Secondly, businessmen and creatives also define the greatness of a nation. The claim neglects other segment of society that has disproprotionately contributed to define a nation as great. For example, the United States is defined as a great nation predominantly because the most influential companies in the world originate from the United States. These standout companies like Apple, Microsoft and Google, are what the worldwide community point to when they acknowledge the United States as a great nation. And these companies are where they are today because of savvy businessmen and innovators who are neither artist nor scientist. As such, the claim is too myopic in declaring that only the achivements of the rulers, artists or scientists will be indicative of a great nation.

However, some may argue that as long as the citizens are contented be it through well-crafted policies, rich culture or technological convenience, the nation can be considered great. This is a myopic view that equates contentment of the citizens to greatness. Undoubtable, ensuring the well-being of the citizens are well-looked after is an achievement and is a defining characteristic of a great nation. It alone is not sufficient to equate a nation as great. The bar for "great" is a high one, which can only be achieved if a nation is able to stand up amongst the others and being well-fed and well-clothed just do not make the cut.

To sum up, there are many defining indicators of a great nation, not merely the achievements of a particular segment of society: rulers, artists or scientists. Inarguably, they do contribute to defining a greatness of a nation, but other factors like the combination of the achivements of all these above mentioned segments of society and other segments of society also have to be considered when trying to identify a nation as great.