"As a close buddy of the President, and also, the vice President, celebrity RA should definitely uphold a good name, behaviour and carries out his duties well. Oh, and those presidential guards? They're just for creating content and showing off a new car to a friend. Getting fired wouldn't be pleasant either," commented Bagong after seeing an online post. "Ah, never mind, let's continue our topic," said Semar.
"Critics of evaluating a government's performance within the first 100 days highlight several concerns regarding this practice," Semar moved on. "The 100-day evaluation often reduces complex policymaking processes to simplistic metrics, focusing on immediate, visible outcomes rather than long-term sustainability. This can lead to a neglect of deeper social changes and the broader implications of policies implemented during this period.
The intense media scrutiny during the first 100 days can result in sensationalised coverage, where minor missteps are highlighted while substantial achievements are overlooked. This can create a distorted public perception of a president's capabilities.
Early evaluations often fail to account for the legacy and actions of previous administrations, which can heavily influence a new president's ability to govern effectively. This complicates fair assessments of their performance.
Critics emphasize that focusing on the first 100 days ignores the long-term consequences of policies. Early decisions might have ramifications that unfold over the years, making it essential to adopt a more longitudinal approach to evaluation.
Some argue that 100 days is too short to judge the effectiveness of policies that may take years to yield results. Leaders may be pressured to prioritize quick wins over thoughtful, long-term strategies. Different governments face varying challenges, and rigid comparisons can be unfair. Critics contend that the 100-day mark is an arbitrary benchmark that may not accurately reflect a president's capabilities or the complexities of governance. It often leads to superficial assessments based on immediate actions rather than long-term outcomes.
The early days of a presidency can be heavily influenced by the legacy and actions of predecessors, making it difficult to assess a new president's performance independently. For example, Harry Truman faced challenges due to the public's lingering affection for FDR, which affected his early evaluations despite his significant contributions later in his presidency.
The media's focus on the first 100 days can lead to sensationalism, where minor missteps are magnified while substantial achievements may be overlooked. This can create skewed perceptions of a president's effectiveness based on short-term reactions rather than long-term goals and policies. Many critiques highlight that early evaluations often ignore the long-term implications of decisions made during this period. For instance, Bill Clinton faced significant criticism in his first 100 days but went on to achieve notable successes later in his presidency.
The dynamic nature of policymaking means that evaluating government performance requires a more nuanced approach than simply looking at the first few months. Critics argue for a more longitudinal evaluation culture that considers the ongoing impact of policies over time.
In "Presidents in Crisis: Tough Decisions Inside the White House from Truman to Obama" (2015, Arcade Publishing), Michael K. Bohn explores the complexities of presidential decision-making during crises. He provides valuable insights into why the first 100 days may not always be a fair or practical timeframe for evaluation.
Bohn emphasizes that crises often arise unexpectedly, leaving presidents little time to prepare. Each crisis presents unique challenges, requiring a tailored response rather than a pre-planned agenda. Evaluating a presidency based on actions taken within the first 100 days might overlook the time required to assess, strategize, and implement effective solutions to emerging crises.
According to Bohn, the immense pressure of making decisions with limited information is a defining feature of crisis management. He highlights examples of presidents, such as Harry Truman during the early Cold War or John F. Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis, navigating high-stakes decisions that often had no clear 'right' answer. These decisions might not fit neatly into a 100-day evaluation framework, as their outcomes often take months or years to materialize.
Bohn points out that new presidents face institutional inertia and political resistance, which can slow down decision-making. For example, building trust with Congress, assembling a reliable team, and understanding the nuances of federal agencies take time. The first 100 days may therefore be more about laying groundwork than achieving visible outcomes.
Bohn discusses how presidents often need to prioritize long-term strategies over immediate results. For instance, Barack Obama faced criticism for not achieving rapid economic recovery during his first 100 days, but his policies, such as the stimulus package, were designed for sustained impact rather than quick fixes.
Bohn explores how public and media expectations for dramatic change in the first 100 days can create unrealistic pressures on presidents. This disconnect often leads to superficial evaluations, focusing on symbolic gestures or rushed initiatives rather than substantive progress. Bohn notes that Truman faced an unprecedented ethical and strategic dilemma shortly after taking office. Evaluating his presidency based on his early decisions alone would ignore the broader context and consequences of those choices. While Obama acted decisively to address the economic collapse, many of his policies were judged prematurely, with their full effects becoming apparent only years later.
Bohn argues that while the first 100 days can offer a snapshot of a president's priorities and leadership style, they are not always indicative of long-term success or competence. Crises require thoughtful, adaptive decision-making that often extends well beyond this symbolic timeframe. As such, a fair evaluation should consider the complexity and time-sensitive nature of presidential decision-making during crises.
In 'What It Takes: The Way to the White House' (1992, Random House), Richard Ben Cramer delves into the immense pressures faced by presidential candidates and newly elected leaders, particularly the expectations placed upon them during the early days of their administration. This work provides an in-depth analysis of the political, media, and public demands that shape leadership decisions. Cramer highlights how leaders are burdened by the promises they made during their campaigns. Upon taking office, presidents are expected to deliver on these promises quickly, even if the political or economic realities make immediate action impractical. This demand for rapid results creates pressure to prioritize visible 'wins' over thoughtful, long-term strategies.
Cramer emphasizes the intense scrutiny presidents face from both the media and the public. In the early days of an administration, the media often sets the narrative, focusing on whether the new leader is fulfilling expectations or floundering. This relentless attention can lead to rushed decisions or symbolic actions designed to appease public opinion rather than address root issues.
Cramer notes that presidents must quickly establish their authority and credibility to gain the trust of Congress, the public, and international leaders. Failure to act decisively in the early days can result in perceptions of weakness, which can undermine an administration's ability to govern effectively.
According to Cramer, new presidents often face resistance from entrenched political interests, including opposition parties and bureaucratic inertia. Balancing the need for cooperation with the urgency to deliver results adds another layer of complexity to early decision-making.
Cramer explores the concept of political momentum, which is strongest immediately after an election. Presidents are expected to capitalize on this momentum to push through key initiatives before they wane, creating a 'now or never' mentality that drives early action. Cramer describes George H. W. Bush's struggle to define his presidency after succeeding Ronald Reagan, facing pressure to both differentiate himself and maintain continuity. Cramer also discusses Jimmy Carter’s focus on delivering quick reforms to fulfil his campaign promises, which led to both successes and missteps.
In 'Measuring Presidential Performance', edited by John W. Self and Chris J. Dolan (2016, Routledge), the editors and contributors critique the 100-day benchmark for evaluating presidents. This academic work explores the complexities of assessing presidential performance and highlights the limitations of using the first 100 days as a definitive yardstick.
The contributors argue that the 100-day benchmark is arbitrary and does not align with the realities of governance. While it gained prominence due to Franklin D. Roosevelt’s unprecedented achievements, it is not inherently meaningful for all administrations or contexts. Policies and initiatives often take months or years to bear fruit, making evaluations based on the first 100 days premature.
The 100-day benchmark emphasises symbolic actions, such as signing executive orders or announcing bold initiatives, rather than substantive achievements. These actions may create a perception of productivity rather than delivering tangible, long-term results. The contributors highlight that different presidents inherit vastly different circumstances. For example, FDR entered office during the Great Depression [a severe economic downturn that began in the United States in 1929 and lasted for a decade. It was the worst economic crisis in the history of the industrialized Western world], necessitating immediate and dramatic action.
Conversely, presidents inheriting relatively stable situations may have fewer urgent tasks, leading to unfair comparisons. The benchmark fails to account for the specific challenges or crises a president may face during their early tenure.
The 100-day standard often measures success by the number of bills passed or executive actions taken. The contributors argue that this approach overlooks the importance of quality over quantity. Passing poorly conceived legislation for the sake of early action can lead to unintended consequences. According to the contributors, the media and public often use the 100-day benchmark to demand immediate results, fostering unrealistic expectations. This pressure may force presidents to prioritize short-term gains over thoughtful, strategic planning, potentially compromising long-term governance.
The editors emphasize that effective leadership involves setting a vision and building coalitions, which may not yield visible results within the first 100 days. Evaluating a presidency based solely on early legislative accomplishments risks ignoring other critical aspects of leadership, such as crisis management or foreign policy.
The editors also examine several presidencies, including Barack Obama, his early efforts to address the 2008 financial crisis and pass the Affordable Care Act illustrate the tension between urgency and long-term planning; George W. Bush; his relatively quiet first 100 days contrasted sharply with the transformative events of 9/11, demonstrating how early evaluations may not capture the eventual trajectory of a presidency.
So, the editors and contributors argue that the 100-day benchmark is an oversimplified and often misleading tool for evaluating presidents. It prioritizes short-term action and legislative output while neglecting the complexities of governance, the varying contexts of different presidencies, and the importance of long-term vision. The work calls for more nuanced and comprehensive approaches to assessing presidential effectiveness.
While it originated in the United States, the 'first 100 days' has become a global yardstick for evaluating new governments, leaders, and even corporate executives. The concept reflects the general expectation that early actions signal the administration's vision and effectiveness.
The term '100 days' was also used to describe Napoleon's return to power in 1815 between his escape from exile and his defeat at the Battle of Waterloo. While unrelated, the term's historical resonance adds to its prominence. In 'Napoleon: A Life' by Andrew Roberts (2014, Viking), the author provides a detailed account of Napoleon Bonaparte's dramatic 'Hundred Days' following his return from exile on the island of Elba. This period, from March 20 to June 28, 1815, is one of the most famous in European history and is a testament to Napoleon’s charisma, ambition, and the fragility of European alliances.
After less than a year on Elba, Napoleon escaped on February 26, 1815, with a small contingent of supporters. He aimed to reclaim his throne in France, spurred by dissatisfaction with the Bourbon monarchy and the political unrest in post-Napoleonic Europe. Roberts describes how Napoleon’s march to Paris was marked by growing support. As he progressed, soldiers sent to arrest him defected, famously declaring, 'Vive l'Empereur!'
Napoleon entered Paris on March 20, 1815, as King Louis XVIII fled. His return was marked by both jubilation and trepidation. Roberts highlights Napoleon’s initial strategy, which involved presenting himself as a reformist leader, promising peace, and offering constitutional reforms through the Acte Additionnel, a revision of the Napoleonic Constitution.
Despite Napoleon’s overtures for peace, the major European powers—including Britain, Prussia, Austria, and Russia—swiftly united against him, forming the Seventh Coalition. They viewed his return as a threat to the fragile postwar order established by the Congress of Vienna. Roberts discusses Napoleon’s efforts to consolidate power domestically, reorganizing the military and rallying public support while facing immense international opposition.
Roberts narrates the lead-up to the Battle of Waterloo on June 18, 1815, where Napoleon faced the Duke of Wellington’s Anglo-Allied forces and the Prussian army under Gebhard Leberecht von Blücher. Despite moments of brilliance, the campaign ended in defeat due to miscommunication among his commanders, adverse weather, and the resilience of his opponents.
Roberts reflects on the symbolic significance of the Hundred Days [les Cent-Jours also known as the War of the Seventh Coalition (Guerre de la Septième Coalition)], portraying it as the ultimate testament to Napoleon’s ability to inspire loyalty and fear while also revealing the limits of his power in the face of united opposition. After Waterloo, Napoleon’s position became untenable. He abdicated for the second time on June 22, 1815, and attempted to secure asylum in Britain but was ultimately exiled to Saint Helena, a remote island in the South Atlantic."
"Are there alternative and more nuanced approaches to evaluating a government’s performance during its first three months, or early days, that go beyond the symbolic 100-day benchmark?" Bagong wanted to know.
