Who's the worst national leader in the world?

[xiphias]

I was just thinking about which country's leader was the worst -- most corrupt, most inept, most generally destructive.

Right now, I think I'm leaning towards Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe. But I'm willing to hear arguments for other candidates. The world isn't short of deserving candidates. . . .

Comments

[hangedwoman.livejournal.com]

I'm assuming you're only talking about current leaders. Unfortunately I'm not as saavy as I'd like to be on world issues, but Mugabe certainly has my vote. Even counting Putin's kleptomania.

[hobbitblue.livejournal.com]

Other than Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot? Nikolai Ceaucescu (sp?) was pretty awful...

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

Oh, I was restricting myself to current. 'Cause, otherwise, I'd go with Lil' Boots himself, Caligula.

[hobbitblue.livejournal.com]

Sorry, saw the "was the worst" and took it to mean ever....

[goljerp]

Oooh, how 'bout the leader of North Korea? He's managed to starve lots of his people and honk off the U.S. Of course, if we weren't so over-extended in Iraq, they'd be in more trouble... and he does seem to have learned the Iraqi lesson: if you let people think you have WMD, when you don't, you get invaded; if you trumpet to the world that you have WMD and you're an unstable, unpredictable bastard, you negotiations.

[sinboy.livejournal.com]

Kim Jong-il, ruler of North Korea. I think he's got more blood on his hands, and is an even bigger asshole than Mugabe. He's also more psychotic. In fact, he's probably THE most psychotic world leader.

[nancylebov.livejournal.com]

Currently? It's hard to say, since I suspect that more information is getting out of Zimbabwe than North Korea. The other difficulty is that that North Korean has been horrendous for a very long time, while Zimbabwe is getting worse fast.

[polydad.livejournal.com]

I'd say how much damage the leader can do is dependent on how good things were before he got there. It's pretty hard to make things *worse* in Somalia, so someone taking charge there can't do much damage.

Based on that hypothesis, I'd nominate George W. Bush as the most damaging leader in the world.

best,

Joel

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

Much as I hate the Shrub, he's just not in Kim Jong-Il or Robert Mugabe's league.

[beardedone.livejournal.com]

That's the beauty of that nomination. He's not. However, decisions made by the Shrub that impact commerce, civil rights, and the bureaucracy (base closures, reductions in force, legal definition of marriage, contracts awarded without bidding (Haliburton,) and so forth have more impact on the world's economy and feeling of safety.

When the US makes a splash in the economy (stock market crashes, tariff hikes, expatriation of corporations,) the ripples are felt throughout the first world countries, which trickles down to the third world.

The Shrub is a very dangerous leader who has many nations outside of the United States watching his every pronouncement.

[vvalkyri.livejournal.com]

:is reminded of Crowley in Good Omens, working his damning of souls by causing 10 mile tailbacks on the M5:

[mattblum.livejournal.com]

I think I'd have to go with Omar al-Bashir, the dictator who runs Sudan. Over 70,000 people have been killed in Darfur, and over 2 million uprooted, due mostly to things done by government-supported militias.

In the southern part of the country, where a lot of people are non-Muslims, Bashir waged a campaign of aerial bombardment and enslavement of women and children in an effort to impose Islamic law on the region. This began a civil war, which ended with a cease-fire allowing government troops to stay in the region and prohibiting the inhabitants of the region from voting for independence for six years.

Sudan currently is estimated to have over 6 million internally displaced citizens due to Bashir's campaigns of religious and ethnic persecution.

[copperpoint.livejournal.com]

While not the leader of any country, Tom Finneran bears mention.