Make your own assessment.

Distinguish visible empathy from ceremonial appearances. Examine decisions as well as language.

• Documented consultation and responses to affected citizens
• Attention to groups bearing policy costs
• Evidence that listening informs decisions

Positive example: A documented decision changes after listening to affected communities, with reasons published.

Negative example: Verified repeated dismissal of affected citizens without considering their circumstances.

Distinguish allegations from institutional findings. Consider the rules and powers in force at the time.

• Compliance with legal and parliamentary oversight
• Transparent reasons and records
• Respect for independent institutions and scrutiny

Positive example: A leader supplies records to lawful scrutiny and acts on formal findings.

Negative example: A formal finding establishes deliberate obstruction of lawful oversight.

Do not score ideological agreement. A justified change of policy is not automatically inconsistency.

• Clearly stated objectives and implementation plans
• Alignment between commitments, resources and decisions
• Explained adaptation to new evidence

Positive example: A published strategy connects objectives, resources and implementation, with explained revisions.

Negative example: Repeated incompatible commitments with no explanation or coherent implementation.

Account for information available at the time, institutional constraints and different types of crisis.

• Timely and proportionate decisions under pressure
• Clear communication of uncertainty
• Use of relevant expertise and institutional capacity

Positive example: Contemporaneous records show calm communication, acknowledged uncertainty and coordinated action.

Negative example: Verified decisions or statements repeatedly inflame a crisis or conceal material uncertainty.

Assess observable conduct, not inferred personality or medical traits. Visibility alone does not demonstrate ego.

• Willingness to acknowledge mistakes and credit others
• Acceptance of criticism and lawful limits
• Behaviour concerning personal promotion and succession

Positive example: A leader publicly corrects an error and accepts an independent decision limiting personal authority.

Negative example: Verified patterns subordinate institutions to personal loyalty or a personality cult.

Separate claimed motives from documented conduct. Do not assume that holding or leaving office proves service.

• Management of conflicts of interest
• Choices concerning personal benefit and public responsibility
• Respect for the duties of office and transfer of power

Positive example: Documented recusal or sacrifice of personal advantage protects a public responsibility.

Negative example: A formal finding establishes misuse of public office for personal benefit.