The effectiveness of a country's leaders is best measured by examining the well-being of that country's citizens.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be

It is a popularly believed that the efficiency of a state's leaders is best evaluated by scrutinizing the well-being of the country's dwellers. Although this idea has a plethora of proponents who deeply but perhaps mistakenly believe that well-being of population is the goal of government, I disagree with the issue because the history of mankind has many examples of effective leaders whose citizens had insufficient level of life.

To begin with, we who live in western societies, which mostly are democratic ones, get used to the idea that elected officials have a primal goal to serve their voters and that well-being of population is an effective way to measure the work of the officials. For instance, we may take a look at Greece. The country is a part of Euro Union and ten years ago it has a high GDP per capita as well as high standards of living; however, in 2008 the state faced serious hardships the well-being of that country's citizens has dropped dramatically, the rate of unemployment has skyrocketed from 6 to 30 per cent, financial support of senior citizens has fallen as well. The population of Greece rightly accused inefficient government of the problems owing to the fact that majority of those problems were created by incompetent actions and decisions of country's leaders. This example illustrates that in fact it is possible to use level of well-being of a state's citizens as a tool for measurement of a leaders’ effectiveness. However, may we aver that this is the best way to do so?

The answer on this question is "no" because the history of humanity has many examples of effective leaders whose people suffered under their governance. Probably the best example of this stance we may find in the recent history of Russia former USSR. In the 1930s Stalin has seized the governance of the state. He organized labor camps for prisoners; they were used to erect plants and manufactures and dig canals. During this period of time the state underwent a significant shortage of food and the central Russia and Ukraine faced severe famine which toll was hundreds of thousands. At the same time, Stalin may be considered as a highly effective leader due to the fact that during his rule the country's GDP tripled from 1931 to 1941and the it became an industrial country with developed manufacturing. This example demonstrates that well-being of country's citizens not always can be used for measuring of leaders’ effectiveness.

Finally, someone may use is that the example above is obsolete one and it should not be used for contemporary society but as far as I am concerned the well-being of a society is not an ultimate goal of government but rather a byproduct of an effective leadership which may or may not be achieved. For instance, during the great depression the citizens of the USA faced serious economic problems, Teddy Roosevelt, launched programs which accelerated and healed the United States’ economy and as a result alleviate the suffering of citizens. In other words, the primal goal was to strengthen economy in the first turn and only than improve life of people.

In conclusion, although it is a common belief that the best way to examine efficiency of leaders is to analyze the well-being of state's citizens, I disagree with it because some leaders who are seen as effective do not bother about well-being of citizens, perhaps, because the well-being is not the ultimate goal but merely a possible outcome.