Some people believe that in order to be effective, political leaders must yield to public opinion and abandon principle for the sake of compromise. Others believe that the most essential quality of an effective leader is the ability to remain consistently

During the history, human being showed his tendency to follow someone as a leader, since he thought that by having somebody as the representative of the group, he would revitalize different facets of his life. Nowadays, all nations, countries and even small groups pf people have a header, which has the duty to think about the whole group and make the best political decisions for that nation’s progression. Today, opinions are divided as to whether, mentioned political leaders, should yield to public ideas or should stay on their especial principals. My firm conviction is that a wise leader is a flexible person, who brings the novel notions in different situation.

It is crystal clear that when a leader or even a simple person asks the other’s ideas, or shares variety of opinions, he would be a much more prosperous person and could lead that nation much better, since by accessing to lots of different ideas, for him, there is a fat chance of selecting the best one. Because the more people see the issue in different perspectives, some would pay attention to details that the leader would not be able to, in some especial situations. Even the god has abetted us to share our ideas and ask the other ones to be more successful.

But on the flip side, I think that if the leader asks public opinions in any cases, chaos would be the only thing that might be resulted. What is more, it goes without saying that even making the best decisions would make some groups of people upset, due to the fact that a large amount of ideas would be completely different, so for some people, there is always possibility of not being convinced. Therefore, it might be a good reason for a leader to be prevented from asking every member’s opinion, and remain consistently committed to lots of different objectives, which can be completely true.

Additionally, I subscribe to the theory that in any situation that the leader sees every one’s profit, there would be no necessity of yielding to public ideas and opinions. This policy also can come in handy in some crucial situation that should be managed immediately, and all of these can be true, as long as the leader see every one’s profit, otherwise it might lead him to exploiting his position, which can be seen in lots of nations, encompasses my own one.

To wrap up, I think there is no firm rule for the leader to abandon principle for the sake of compromises, or to remain committed to those objectives. It all depends on the situation he would be faced with and the occasion.