It is better for a leader to be more feared than loved.

Apologies to Con for my absences in the previous round, as promised, this round will primarily be my opening case. My case will simply use only one argument to justify my position. So without further ado: Fear established dominance While seemingly obvious at first, it is of the utmost importance that a leader and subordinate first understand the necessary component of their positions on a hierarchy, that being, to lead and follow respectively. Failure for a follower to be subordinate is an fundamental blow to the competence of a leader. Failure for a leader to actually lead is nothing short of damning to any form of legitimacy. This is important, as the implications of a leader who rules by love and love alone can speak volumes on both their legitimacy to lead and the competence in doing so. Any relationship that fundamentally built upon a specific sentiment, either of fear or love, admiration or hate, can only sustain itself with consistent validation and reaffirmation of this emotion. In short, it is difficult to dislike a person for a long period of time if the one who is held at contempt does little to validate that feeling. While the distaste may still exist for that individual, it will inevitably wane. Similarly, for a leader to maintain his position, he must act in a matter that validates the basis of his or her power. For a relationship built on love, the leader must act in a matter that warrants love or admiration, for a relationship built upon fear, they must also act consistently in a matter that validates that sentiment. To maintain the love of the followers and the people, a leader would have to act in accordance to the current wants of the followers, regardless of practicality. In short, a loved leader would consistently need to appease his people in order to maintain power. If said leader must act in practicality yet pragmatic need contradict that wants of the masses , then said leader would simply be forced to appease the masses, because failure in doing so would be an affront to the very basis of his power. Take for example, the gift politics of North Korea [1]: A method from which leader Kim Jong Il used to receive favour of government officials was via “gift politics”, in other words, lavish bribery to bureaucrats and officials and “explemary citizens” to maintain a sense of admiration for the “Supreme Leader”. [2] For a leader like Kim Jong Il, such a policy would not have been a problem as he had firmly planted himself as a strong and undisputed leader of North Korea. With his death and succession to his son Kim Jong Un, a general undercurrent lay in the North Korean government and abroad that Kim Jong Un was an incapable leader. As Washington Post journalist David Ignatius writes, “Kim Jong Un is a weak leader in every respect but one.” [3] By depending heavily on bribes, and more so then his predecessor, Kim Jong Un is in a position from which he will have to appease officials as a source of legitimizing his power, forcing him in a constant position of appeasing those who should be following him as a leader. To a leader who is in a constant state of appeasement, making progressively larger and larger concessions to subordinates and followers runs the risk of losing legitimacy all together, as it eventually results in a weak leader who cannot lead from fear of the masses. Thus, to rule by love and love alone puts strongly into question the whether said ruler is legitimate in occupying their position. A leader thusly, who rules by fear alone, is far less likely to come across the same problem. In fact, the opposite is likely to occur. Maintaining a relationship built on fear does not require the same constant need for revalidation as love. The person who is feared may not be entirely justified in being feared, but is feared nonetheless. A person in a state of fear is far more likely to exaggerate the danger or the threat that said source of dread may actually impose. Fear is easily exaggerated and far easier to provoke than love. Thusly, the feared one does not have to worry nearly as much about constant validation of one’s personal dread. In fear, a person is far more malleable to orders and persuasion, the ever present dread of pain creates a need for obedience, to alleviate the threat of fear. Discipline is formed as a result of fear, a fear of punishment and the authority of the leader. Discipline is inevitably conducive to loyalty, for a person who is disciplined, is less likely to betray or defect. As loyalty was instilled in them by fear, Love may invoke a more genuine, sincere form of loyalty. But rarely can one be disciplined by love alone. It is in a state of fear that the subordinate is in constant need to appease the leader to alleviate the threat and it is not the leader who is forced to appease the subordinate. The follower will know there place, and the leader will know his duty. Fear is at the very core of a leader’s competence to lead and their legitimacy to power. For one cannot guide a horse by carrots alone, discipline is required, the stick is need but far more importantly is the fear of the stick to drive the horse. This is why, it is ultimately far more important for a leader to be more loved than feared. I rest my case. On to you Con ;) Sources: 1. http://thediplomat.com... 2. http://www.atimes.com... 3. https://www.washingtonpost.com...