I am in love with fairytales – the beautiful princess, the handsome prince, the evil witch, and the happy ending – the magic formula that I never get tired of reading about. As with every prince and princess, there is always the good ruler, and the bad ruler. The good ruler could be the princess’ father who summons all the people in his kingdom to save his daughter for a wicked curse, while the bad ruler could be the evil witch (never really heard of a bad wizard, except for Harry Potter – which is not really a fairytale story) who wants revenge for the injustice that has befallen upon her. Well at least that’s how the story goes.
One of the most intriguing shows I have ever watched in my whole life is the Game of Thrones series. I bet the book would have been as interesting, if not much more (I would rather not read the brutal ways you can kill a man, thank you very much). I think one of the most important and significant perspective that the GoT series questions is the idea of a “good” ruler. Many people have always thought that a good ruler should have certain qualities – one who is kind, caring, and just, while a “bad” rulers is one who is ruthless, violent, and instills fear in his subordinates. Take the case of Daenerys Targaryen first of her name (and a long list of other titles). She is what would be considered a great ruler, a great queen: just to people she rules over, giving them trials to bring their concerns to her; is kind and loving such that she does not take any servant as her slave, but would prefer they serve out of love; and she has this idealistic sense of justice, that she is only rules to bring happiness and richness to her subjects. Then we have the bad ruler, king Geoffrey – the most badass character there ever was: a sadistic, selfish and coward king that hides behind his power and wields it to show off his authority and to feed his precious little ego.
At face value, we can sing Daenerys’ praises regarding her qualities and convictions as a ruler, and can easily discard king Geoffrey as a maniac who should never be allowed to rule in the first place. But that would be cruel – both to Geoffrey and Daenery’s. Looking at Daenery’s, she had so much to go through before she got to where she actually is. Furthermore, she did not want to be a queen, but became one because she had no where else to go – it was either she fought her way through Westeros to reclaim her father’s throne, or to give up and die to be with her husband and child. In the end she had one choice to make – to live, even if means to rule and reclaim what she believes was hers.
Geoffrey on the other hand, is the son borne out of incest – his mother and his uncle; that in itself is enough to drive a person mad. He was also young, and was at an awkward stage of his life (remember your teenage years?). He had room to improve if he was only taught well, and was not spoiled by an ambitious mother. And let’s be honest, I think Geoffrey was literally born crazy (sadomasochist anyone?), which may or may not have been because he was born to parents within the same family.
So what am I trying to say? My point is that there are situations in a person’s life that makes them the “good” or the “bad” ruler that they are. Never was one person born as a good or a bad leader, but was made into it by the circumstances and experience that a person has gone through. Another thing to think about is, does a good ruler always mean a good or great kingdom? Let’s take a look at Daenary’s city of Meereen.
GoT buffs out there will know that Daenary’s once quiet and peaceful Meereen is not longer such, and is beset with chaos and violence, particularly between the former slaves and masters of the city. In the latest season of GoT, Daenery’s two commanders – Grey Worm (the head of the Unsullied) and Lord Barristan Selmy (the former Lord of Commander for Dany’s father, the “Mad King”) died fighting, what are modern-day called terrorists, who have been killing their unsullied soldiers and her subjects. Back-up story is that Daenary’s sentenced a former slave to death because he killed a former master that was to be tried, which is against the rules of the city.
Before sentencing the former slave to death, Danaery’s had to choose between going through with the sentence or withholding the sentence and show mercy. The thing is, if Danaery’s did not go through the sentence, she would risk making herself look weak, and encouraging people to break the laws. On the other hand, if she did push through with the sentence, she runs the risk of angering her people for failing to show mercy – which is what happened. Now, if you were Danaery’s which would you have chosen?
The hard part in being a ruler – which people don’t really talk about – is that it is very difficult. As a ruler, when you make decisions, you just don’t make it for yourself, but you make it for others as well. Your decisions not only affect you, but affect all people subject to your rule. Thus, the question that people fail to ask themselves when they dream of becoming rulers and leaders is if they can handle such consequences. Giving orders and making rules is just one side to ruling – the most enjoyable part for some (I mean, who does not enjoy having their wishes come true?). But the other, more important side to ruling – the side that most people fail to ignore is – what are the effects and consequences of your command?
Having read through this, given the chance, will you still want to rule? The best thing about this question is that you only have yourself to worry about.
goingroyal 