The effectiveness of a country's leaders is best measured by examining the well-being of that country's citizens.

Whether a country's citizens' well being should be directly linked with the efficacy of the leader is a moot question. The prompt suggests that the effectiveness of a country’s leader is best measured by the wellbeing of its citizens. In my opinion, I concur with this suggestion and argue that the litmus test for the measure of effective governance is the combined welfare of all its citizens for two reasons. No doctrinaire leader has ever been regarded in the annals of history as an asset to the nation. The image and perception of the leader are strongly correlated with the changes he or she has affected for its general populace, for the struggles he or she has pioneered on behalf of the citizens. The example Nelson Mandela on the one hand and those of Adolf Hitler on the other are testaments to this. In countries like North Korea, where dictatorship is the form of government, most of the people are indigent. They don't have enough food to eat as the rise of Covid 19 has seen the horrid rise in inflating prices. Their children are dying of starvation and the only thing responsible for this is the ineffectiveness of its leaders. The supreme leader of North Korea doesn't have good relations with most of the countries. Instead of providing food to the people of the country, he focuses more on the military arsenal and wants to prove to the world that his nation is an example of a perfect nation. Thus, most countries don't have good relations with North Korea and have imposed sanctions. Here, the ineffectiveness of the leader of North Korea is causal to the citizens of North Korea living in a pitiful state. When leaders are widely celebrated around the country but their policies and work have no effect on the well being of its citizens, they’re ineffective. For instance, in India, there are a lot of people who think that the current leader is very effective. He has maintained good relations with other countries, focusses on Foreign Direct Investment to help the citizens of the country and provide them with jobs so that they can provide for themselves and their families. Still, there are more people in India, who go to sleep without a meal than the number of people who are benefitting from these policies. India being a paragon for a country with a conventionally accepted leader but with a mix of both classes of people: those who are living luxurious lives and those who are living below the poverty line. Here, however victorious the governance of the Indian government seems, the mass majority of India is poverty stricken, alluding to an ineffective leader. History has shown crisis management to be a great factor in understanding what a good leader and a bad one does to a country. The coronavirus being an ongoing crisis, the response from nations around the world has proven how a great leader shapes the country’s well being in difficult situations. Jacinda Arden, New Zealand’s prime minister, who proves what an exceptional leader she is. Navigating the Covid-19 pandemic by acting swiftly and effectively communicating the thinking behind those actions to New Zealand’s five million citizens. Taking a 20 per cent wage cut, a gesture of solidarity with those who have lost their jobs or been forced to accept a reduced salary as a result of the turmoil caused by the lockdown. Ardern gave us a glimpse of a different kind of leadership, one that puts kindness at the top of the agenda. As her country, which has just 32 active cases of coronavirus, continues to live life without lockdown restrictions, having a remarkable impact on New Zealand since she came to power in 2017. Thanks to her strong leadership during the pandemic, a recent poll found that Ardern is the country’s most popular leader in 100 years. Almost 92 per cent of respondents say they support the measures she has implemented. Thus, an exceptional leader’s worth depends on its citizens' welfare. One can argue that the country is not completely in the hands of its government but the citizens also shape it, and while that opinion isn’t completely wrong, it isn’t completely right. For a well functioning country we need well functioning leaders who believe in equality and rights of its citizens thus creating policies that benefit the masses. In conclusion, the efficacy of a leader undeniably rests on the health of the citizens. Which is most holistically measured when economic, social and civil aspects are taken into consideration. Only a leader who succeeds in ensuring all these in balanced quantities to its citizens, would be regarded as a stellar leader.