Comparative Political Leadership

Comparative Political Leadership

Every brilliant leader has its own way of leading his nation. They have different approach in reaching progress and development of their country. I will compare to great military leaders in history Germany’s Adolf Hitler and Italy’s Benito Mussolini. They both rise in power in the times of the World Wars.
When Adolf Hitler came into power in 1933, the Germans have a great belief that he will make Germany as the most powerful nation in the world. Nazi party members believe that Hitler’s leadership is free and independent as well as it was exclusive and unlimited.   Hitler’s charismatic leadership gained popularity because of his political skills and magnetism. He managed to minimize unemployment. He was also a great speaker, he always told the public about his missions for Germany. Hitler was a visionary and not a natural Head of State. He was bored with paper works and often signed papers without reading them.
Despite Hitler’s limitless power, Hitler was aware that his power will lose its potency without the help of the Nazi party together with the German people. He listens to the opinions of all the members of the Nazi party and analyzed how these opinions help him in maintaining power. He always told the Germans that he was not a dictator but a guide in obtaining Germany’s mission. Hitler did not believe in the existence of limitless power, because he knew that he has his weaknesses as a leader.
Hitler conceived his role in terms of a duty to restore Germany to a great power, and his belief in the importance of his mission was patronize by the German nation, enabled him to be a charismatic leader. Hitler's own perception was an idealistic belief of an artist with a vision, rather than a politician with ability for running a state. As such he could go beyond official bureaucratic procedures in governing the country and he relied on German support to do so.
On the other hand, Benito Musollini was a great speaker and a good...