Time Capsule III: The World through my Eyes

Leadership

I feel that it is extremely important to have rules and or Laws set in all types of societies. Without rules or laws, the world would be in complete chaos. People would be running about committing robbery, breaking and entering, and what I consider being the worst, murder. As you can probably tell, without laws or rules, societies would be in a complete and total mess.

There are many types of ways to run a society, each with their strength and weaknesses. The first leadership style a society can have is Autocratic. An Autocratic style leadership is when a person or a selected few people chosen by the person with the most power (leader) decide what's best for their society. I feel that this type of leadership wouldn't be well suited for societies with a very big population such as Canada. This is because Autocratic leadership doesn't allow any other opinions into important matters that could affect everyone in a society, which in turn can be the pitfall of that particular society. This is much better off in a small or remote town or village.

The second leadership style a society can have is Democratic. A Democratic leadership style is run by a majority rules (50% plus 1). I like this leadership style best since it gives everyone a chance to say something or have their voice heard. Even if a decision didn't go a person's way, they can have comfort that maybe the opposite decision as to what they wanted couldn't be so bad since more than half the population were for it. Canada runs on a Democratic leadership style and it seems to be working perfectly fine. I really enjoy this type of leadership. It means both consensual/collaborative and Autocratic in the middle.

The third and final leadership style is consensual/collaborative. Consensual/collaborativeleadership style is when all outcomes are made unanimously. I feel that this particular leadership style is the worst for any country to have,  no matter how small. If this type of leadership was to be used by any nation, they would be down and out. This is because it's a very slow process and the fact that everyone must agree, makes it near impossible for nation to come to a final decision. There would never be a decision met if a country had a consensual/collaborative type of leadership. The only time this type of leadership would be in handy is when you're lost in the woods or forest, etc. with a group of people where everyone's opinions matter, since their lives would be involved. Other than in a very small group of people, this leadership shouldn't see significant daylight for any country. 

There is not just one leadership all societies can have or is considered "the best" for all societies. What leadership style may be good for Canada doesn't necessarily mean it would be good for South America. It just depends on the situation and the society itself in order to determine which leadership style is the best for it.