Certainly an oversimplification, but the approval rating of 70% or more amounts to populism promised or implemented at the expense of next generations, and the approval rating of 30% or below implies firm, but short-of-strategy pursuit of principles, if not incompetence. Just around 50% is, I assume, arguably an optimum in highly-divided societies with an ever-increasing conflict of interests amongst constituents. To achieve the “ideal” rating, what is needed is to compromise policies of lower priority, at least temporarily, not to lose ground and make things work at times with the rating below 50% and push forward policies of higher priority at time with the rating above 50%.
It is yet a balance that is hard to achieve. One reason is that the balance builds on leaders armed with both strategy and philosophy, who are surprisingly rare to be found or elected to take important seats. They belong to either a representative of the privileged, who is short of philosophy, or an advocate of the havenots and the middle class, who is short of strategy. This is, however, the problem that is not of individual leaders but of democracy per se as a system. The more the economy grows as a result of the pursuit of self-interests in a democratic society, the more divided the society is and the harder It is to have a balanced leader serve people. As such, only the countries – particularly between more advanced, so more divided, ones – that retain thick the middle class from which common senses are generated possibly have such a balanced leader seated at key posts and take steps forward.