One of the reasons why Hamlet would make a terrible king is because he does not act. His constant vacillations between what he should do and what he doesn't do would foment revolution in an instant. If regal leadership is defined by a sense of leading people, inspiring them to action, and ensuring that a course of government is laid out, Hamlet is not your man. Hamlet features a sensibility whereby "function is smothered by surmise." This is not what makes a successful leader. There is a parade of historical figures who have failed at leadership at their inability to take action and the constant waffling in decision making abilities. For this, Hamlet would not make a very good leader. At the same time, I think that Hamlet's lack of control of his own emotional state would not be suitable for political leadership. Hamlet is seeking to fully grasp his own emotional sense of identity and in wrestling with this, I think that failures on a political level would be evident. Again, there are numerous examples of poor political leadership on the part of individuals who could not sort out their own emotional challenges in a clear and focused manner. Hamlet would belong to this group. His inability to be emotionally honest with Ophelia is one such example where his lack of clarity in his own emotional schematic results in poor decision making. This is not reflective of someone who would be successful in political office.