What is the ideal leader?
I ask, because I wish to be the one to perfect a form of government that keeps the everyone happy. Yes, I said everyone. And do not discount this as impossible. When we were granted the power of choice, we took our power for granted, and now most never understand exactly how great our gift was, and is. I digress. This is theoretical, yes, but I am only willing to disagree with 10 people out of 100, 1000, 10000, etc. for the reality check. If the people involved are less than 100, I will disagree with only 1.

an ideal leader should not be a lunatic who talks a load of old nonsense...

wait a minute. why did no one think of this before?
keep everyone happy? good idea!
only be willing to disagree with 10 percent of people? no problem!
we should follow this man and treat him as our leader.

Also, an ideal leader is a slave to society, and does not enslave the society. They must do what the public tells them; they have centralized power, but no power over themselves. In this way, the one who becomes leader is a selfless servant to society.

And thus, we know for sure that this leader of ours will be honest to us, for they must be rather humble to even try to be one.

Sadly, I have a feeling that the majority of people, deep down, feel that *they* are the ideal leader.

That may be, but one knows when they must choose a successor, and at that point will your statement be proven incorrect.

ideal is subjective tristien

Of course it is. My intention of "the ideal leader" is to have the people state what they think one is, thus creating a series of rules to be subjective to.
So what is your point?

Slave to the people? Many politicians do that so they can be reelected. It leads them to do unconsciable things such as waste millions on pork barrel projects.

An ideal leader should lead the people, not just follow. They should strike a bold path and seek to win the people to their side. Only if the people reject this path should the leader follow their wishes.

School PV

When I say slave, I mean that the only power they have is the carrying out of the people's wishes, eg they have no power but to obey the majority.

Obeying the majority is necessary, but it is not sufficient. And it is not leadership in any sense of the word.

School PV

Of course the leader will need to speak and compel the people to see it his or her way, but to obey the majority is indeed within the boundaries of the ideal leader. The leader has the choice not to, but will the leader disobey the people? If not, that would be ideal. See what I mean?