The power of Good Leadership

[Davino]

Lately I've come to appreciate the power of great leadership and the transformation impact that can have in countries, companies and society at large.

Two striking examples are Nayib Bukele in El Salvador and Lee Kuan Yew in Singapore.

Bukele inherited a country called the murder capital of the world. His government’s aggressively cracked down on gangs and organised crime, despite receiving enormous global pushback by human rights movement, it has successfully transformed public safety to the point that now the US considers it safer than Sweden. The investment on education has also been heavy, with the program 2 schools everyday being built, over 900 schools have already been delivered since the start of the initiative last year. The last polls state that 94% of the country supports him, a record almost unheard of in democratic societies.

 

Decades earlier, Lee Kuan Yew led Singapore from a small, poor and forced to be independent state into one of the world's most prosperous and developed economies. His vision was built around long-term thinking, strong institutions, economic pragmatism, education, infrastructure, and an uncompromising focus on national development; creating a successful style of government called state-guided capitalism.

 

 

Ultimately, the difference between a stagnant society and a thriving one may sometimes come down to the quality of their leaders and whether they are capable of thinking beyond the next election, have a compelling vision and deliver tangible results. 

(Post written with the help of AI to make it smoother)

[Recursoinominado]

Just a few thousand innocent people are jailed in overcrowded cells, without any rights, but who cares! 

[Leo Gura]

Yes, without good leadership humans are doomed.

Humans need good leadership because most humans are followers and incapable of leading themselves.

Edited September 6 by Leo Gura

[enchanted]

@Davinoquality post thanks

[Davino]

The thing is that sometimes we believe that changing a big system is almost impossible, but once in a while a great leader appears and does it and even quite quickly; which leads me to think how mediocre most leadership is.

A great leader can totally transform your country in just 4 years. This is very eye opening.

[Ulax]

I love Singapore's anti-corruption stuff theories

[Ajay0]

A favourite leader of mine is Lazaro Cardenas, who is considered the greatest president Mexico had in the twentieth century.

Both honest and competent, he brought about revolutionary all-round reforms that empowered the poor and underprivileged of Mexico, strengthened and brought about Mexican economic independence ending foreign dependencies, ended military interference in Mexican politics and strengthened democratic rule.

He developed Mexican culture by welcoming thousands of exiled  Spanish refugees which included prominent Spanish writers, artists, scientists, and professors who fled the dictatorship of Francisco Franco.

This significantly enriched Mexican culture, education, and intellectual life.

Post-presidency as well, he lived a simple life and continued to work and promote reforms in rural Mexico  building free medical clinics, local schools, and supervising irrigation projects for poor rural communities.

Even now it is hard for me to believe that such a man and world-class leader came up in Mexico, and if at all Mexico had a Zorro like figure,it would be Cardenas, imho.

[Joseph Maynor]

 

[Wilhelm44]

On 9/6/2026 at 6:02 PM, Recursoinominado said:

Just a few thousand innocent people are jailed in overcrowded cells, without any rights, but who cares! 

Sometimes a benevolent dictator is the only way, for a while at least, Rwanda is a good example of this.

[WonderSeeker]

On 9/6/2026 at 4:26 PM, Davino said:

Lately I've come to appreciate the power of great leadership and the transformation impact that can have in countries, companies and society at large.

Two striking examples are Nayib Bukele in El Salvador and Lee Kuan Yew in Singapore.

Bukele inherited a country called the murder capital of the world. His government’s aggressively cracked down on gangs and organised crime, despite receiving enormous global pushback by human rights movement, it has successfully transformed public safety to the point that now the US considers it safer than Sweden. The investment on education has also been heavy, with the program 2 schools everyday being built, over 900 schools have already been delivered since the start of the initiative last year. The last polls state that 94% of the country supports him, a record almost unheard of in democratic societies.

 

Decades earlier, Lee Kuan Yew led Singapore from a small, poor and forced to be independent state into one of the world's most prosperous and developed economies. His vision was built around long-term thinking, strong institutions, economic pragmatism, education, infrastructure, and an uncompromising focus on national development; creating a successful style of government called state-guided capitalism.

Ultimately, the difference between a stagnant society and a thriving one may sometimes come down to the quality of their leaders and whether they are capable of thinking beyond the next election, have a compelling vision and deliver tangible results. 

(Post written with the help of AI to make it smoother)

Great post. 

In the US we need another FDR-type guy. Hopefully there doesn't need to be a crisis to get one, but knowing human nature there might need to be. 

[enchanted]

What about in a toxic family? Can good leadership change anything? More specifically from an adult kid in the family? 

[shenanigans]

Unlitateralism at its finest

[shenanigans]

Actually this is why you can just win from almost any position in civilization. If your leader just wants to win, is undying, has perfect information, understands the future tech tree, and has unilateral top down control, how the hell could they ever lose, lol.

In the modern day meritocracy based unilateralism actually seems more and more viable, lol — At least when it comes to developing a nation, already developed nations benefit from a more administrative approach which democracy helps facilitate, etc. Supposedly....

I mean democracy is built on a case of insurance, not efficiency. If accountability can be leveraged through more outside means, then democracy isn't as optimal. Make the government for nerds and leaders  who want to be in government, not people who want to acquire lucrative government contracts.

Instead of democratic process simply have full presidential transparency, and as a means for vetoing a presidents power, maybe if your government is corrupt you could just complain to the UN, and have an public investigation, and if they are corrupt have them replaced via a new public election from that country. — Interesting concept. Even if unilateralism is not utilized, being able to complain to the UN that your leader is unstoppably corrupt and having a public investigation and a newly facilitated election is actually a really good idea.

So in summary; I think having democry is great for administrations, but not good for new development. The scaffolding that builds the empire may not be needed to maintain it.

Edited Friday at 07:52 PM by shenanigans