Jose Maria Aznar, for his unswerving support on the War On Terror, which will in time become supported by his citizens as they realise this is the only choice they…errrrr…oh fuck…
Millions of former Labour voters would argue otherwise
How about East Timor’s president Xanana Gusmao ? He led hois country’s fight for independence and was imprisoned by the Indonesians for six years. One of his visitors whilst in prison was Nelson Mandela.
And I wonder if not having lived under a rock for the past, say, 12 months would affect his views.
I too am a little startled to see so many nominations going to actual or de facto dictators (albeit benevolent ones) of very small countries. Is industrializing a small Third World nation without repressing the citizens too severely really the best current example of “world leadership” that we can think of?
Actually, considering the shenanigans of the big politicians who actually are more or less leading the world, maybe the answer to that question is “yes”. Gee, that’s kind of depressing.
Originally from Milum
Just one quibble. Tony Blair is not a Head of State.
Come to think of it, most European Heads of State are pretty ceremonial (the French Head of State excepted) and a waste of time, so they don’t have the political power to be relevant in the context of the OP, unlike the joke South American countries which have a tradition in believing that one man can run a country and have organised their constitutions, such as they are, to conform with this childish belief.
If you are talking about the top Kahunas of countries, then I think you have made an excellent choice in the dynamic duo you have named.
They soundly disposed of a Weapon of Mass Destruction (or Weapon of Mass Murder, if you want to get picky) from Iraq and I really think some congratulations are in order here.
Not that I think much will come out of it in the longer term. Iraq will probably soon revert to the usual Middle Eastern form of government which mainly involves mass turmoil involving the dim bulb and excitable sub group of the Iraqi male population aged 18-35 - or about 10%-15% of the adult population - taking over the streets and concluding with the last man standing taking over. Either another Mad General or a Mad Mullah.
Still, “A” for effort to Dubya and Tony.
Can’t let this one go. Rjung, you’re smarter than this. Bush and Blair went into the war based on what the govt’s info told them. Parliament and Congress agreed to it. I know it’s cute to make one sentence snipes on boards, but you know damn well it was the best info we had at the time (primarily (sp?) given by an ex-Iraqi WMD scientist.)
Keep in mind, we’re still to this day learning of what the Nazi’s were up to, and that was 60 years ago. Life doesn’t always move along our broadband speed. Every now and then, we have to wait for the truth to emerge.
I personally believe that benevolent dictatorship is the best form of government. They have control of the treasury and total decision-making power. The problem is that very few dictators have been benevolent and capable. Also, benevolent dictatorship lends itself most easily to city-states such as Qatar, where the citizens are essentially one large tribe.
Very short sighted. The problem is, what happens when the next guy turns out to not so “benevolent”. I have to agree with Kimstu on this.
I’d say right now there is only one World Leader: Bush (or whoever happens to be the US president). I can’t think of anyone else who has the power and influence to affect the whole world as he does. So, that makes my selection easy. 
Well, then it wouldn´t be a “benevolent dictatorship” anymore… I guess that a benevoloent dictatorship is still the best form of goverment, or for that mattter, any goverment that is not compossed of self-serving or simply maniac politicians.
Rulers
*The best rulers are scarcely known by their subjects;
The next best are loved and praised;
The next are feared;
The next despised:
They have no faith in their people,
And their people become unfaithful to them.
When the best rulers achieve their purpose
Their subjects claim the achievement as their own.* ~ The Dao de Jing by Lao Tse
So who fills one of the top two in this world?
I thought about him, when I read the OP, but thinking twice, I remembered he didn’t anything really spectacular as a political leader. So, despite him being one of the rare politicians I have a deep respect for, It’s more related to his personnal history than to his achievments as a head of state. So, I’m not sure he belongs to the list of the best world leader.
By the way, I’m amazed that so many people are voting for the rulers of small arabic emirates…
Glad to see you acknowledge it.
Sorry, doesn’t fly. Bush and Blair can keep insisting they were fed (wildly) misleading intelligence, but all the available evidence indicates they knew the intel didn’t support their claims, but went ahead with the snow job anyway. Heck, just look at how Bush is sabotaging the Congressional inquiry into Iraq war intelligence failures – if he really was misled, wouldn’t he be eager to help the commision get their resolts and exonerate him, before the November elections? (Conveniently enough, the Iraq intelligence investigation won’t report their findings until 2005)
Or as Colin Powell said the night before he made his United Nations lie-a-thon, “I can’t say this, it’s bullshit.”
Yes, they made the tragic mistake of actually believing Bush and Blair.
That’s how I feel too. The Sheik’s father, whom he seized power from, was not at all a benevolent dictator. And it isn’t likely that his son will be either. However, the progress Qatar has made under this guy is nothing short of extraordinary.
I’ll nominate Pope John Paul II as one of the main actors in the fall of the Soviet Empire and the freeing of Eastern Europe.
If we allow still living but retired leaders, I’ll plump for Margaret Thatcher, for her role in the fall of the Soviet Empire, the turning around of Britain, the regaining of the Falklands, and her steadfast defence of liberty.
Democracies tend not to produce “great leaders”, except in times of true national danger - which this ain’t. Instead, they produce consensus-makers, managers, and people capable of working the party machine.
I for one don’t miss “great leaders”.
The only “Average” performance of the Democratic system is better than the wild ups and downs of dictatorships and other systems.
I agree this is not a time of true national danger… in fact and curiously the Greenhouse Effect might make this a time of true global danger, yet is given so little or no attention. Who knows how badly the future will judge him on this issue…
Actually, to be fair to the Sheikh of Qatar, he did a little more than just not repress his citizens too severely. Not only did he start the first independent Arab news agency (al-Jazeera), he has also begun a series of reforms - including the beginnings of a constitutional parliamentary democracy.
You don’t often see an autocrat voluntarily moving his country to a stable democracy of his own accord and under his own initiative, and I think it deserves some props.
To sort of go along with what Neurotik said, I think you have to take into consideration the political context of these rulers. In the Middle East, for example, I would give higher ratings to a benevolent dictator who introduced democratic and free-market reforms over a period of time than one who promised ‘power to the masses’ at the expense of stability.
The Emir of Qatar has to be the winner, with the caveat that he’s not democratically elected.
Chen Shui-Bian of Taiwan deserves a mention, IMO, both for who he is (human-rights lawyer turned pol; has now survived 2 attempts on his life) and what he’s done: completing and institutionalizing democracy there, getting Taiwan in the WTO.