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 committed to particular principles and objectives.
Write a response in which you discuss which view more closely aligns with your own position and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should address both of the views presented.
I would agree to both the views partially. It is not uncommon for some to argue that poiltical leaders are meant to be solving people’s problems and hence must yeild to public opinion even if that means to let go of his/her principles. After all, they are elected for that very purpose – to serve the public concerns. Yet, this view overlooks the importance of the leader adhering to the principles that form the foundation of the latter’s actions. While leaders must be flexible and approachable to the public, they however must also be principled to an extent that they are able to effectively address the concerning issues. History of mankind is testimony to the fact that leaders would not have led countries to victory, had they not stuck with the principles. But again, being too unshakable on certain issues would prove disastrous. So effecctive leadership would have to rely on the middle-ground between the above two views.
The greatest dilemma standing in the way of effective political leadership is to figure out when to be flexible and when to stand firm on the principles. I do not concur with the first view that argues the leader must always compromise and abandon principles. This is a blanket statement that does not consider the consequences of the leader being too pliant. Although it is understandable that the public would like the leader to listen to them and fulfill their needs, yet in the instance of an ever compliant leader, some fringe sections might take advantage of the situation. Besides, it will be totally unscrupulous on the part of the leader to yield to all sorts of demands. We have instances of successful presidents like Churchill and Truman who never yielded to the Soviet aggressions during world war II and ensured the position and security of the USA throughout such turbulent times. We need leaders who can hold their principles. On the other hand, Mahatma Gandhi never let go of his resolve to fight the British Raj in India, through non-violent means. He never yielded to the appeals and demands of the extreme factions within Indian National Congress to employ violent means, even if that meant loosing some key members in his fight. What Gandhi achieved was total independence and that too, without causing much of a dent in the population numbers. Had violence been employed as a strategy, Indians would have been easily defeated and crushed under the might of the British and independence would have remained as an illusion.
A leader who does not change or who does not even listen to changes, is however unhealthy for a system to thrive. Such an attitude will cause irreparable damages. Lets take the instance of Hitler and his generals. On the face of imminent defeat, Hitler’s constant denial to listen to his generals finally brought him his downfall. As the German army kept getting smaller, Hitler continued to hold on to his belief that the opponent would be intimidated by the vehement tenacity of the German army. Repeated advise of his Generals fell on deaf ears. Finally Hitler was proved wrong and Germany was shamed for his actions for years to come. Sticking blindly to the principles would do much more harm to the citizens, than good.
Some sections of the society believe that a successful leader never looks back and never compromises. Often when a leader compromises, he or she is viewed as weak or as being defeated. However, the truth is, the leader needs to compromise and adapt to changing reality to earn the benefit for his people. Herbert Hoover in his days in office, was widely lauded for his principles. He was told to be the best president by many who knew him personally.Yet, when the great depression crippled the USA, his unshakable principles came in his way to deal effectively with the depression. Instead, it was Franklin Roosevelt through his pragmatic approach and flexibility who guided the country through two greatest crisis of the 20th Century. Roosevelt was a leader who was adaptable and volunteered flexibility in his ideals. Hoover did the opposite and ended up as a failure. Thus consistently being principled is harmful.
In conclusion, I would say political leaders cannot succeed through tough ideals and convictions alone. Nor making too many compromises would grant any benefit to the public they serve. While leaders are required to have firm principles to guide them in effective governance, yet they are also required to adopt a pragmatic and flexible approach and must yield to public opinion, to solve certain issues. While there might be certain issues where compromise on ideals is necessary to ensure the safety of the society, standing firm on principles would also be sometimes required on others. Thus, there are various types of situations that might arise and the responsibility to tackle them either through principles or by compromise, depends solely on the leaders. Besides, being too pliable or too unshakable on issues have their own demerits. So effective leadership would have to depend partly on both the presented views. That is, by efficiently deciding which approach (compromise or principles) to apply on what kind of issues.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 395, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...iant. Although it is understandable that the public would like the leader to list...
^^
Line 3, column 1119, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ielded to the appeals and demands of the extreme factions within Indian National ...
^^
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...e would have remained as an illusion. A leader who does not change or who does...
^^^
Line 5, column 164, Rule ID: LETS_LET[1]
Message: Did you mean 'Let's'?
Suggestion: Let's
...ttitude will cause irreparable damages. Lets take the instance of Hitler and his gen...
^^^^
Line 5, column 550, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Finally,
...vise of his Generals fell on deaf ears. Finally Hitler was proved wrong and Germany was...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 44, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...e sections of the society believe that a successful leader never looks back and n...
^^
Line 7, column 270, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...compromise and adapt to changing reality to earn the benefit for his people. Herb...
^^
Line 7, column 453, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: Yet
...esident by many who knew him personally.Yet, when the great depression crippled the...
^^^
Line 7, column 874, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...the opposite and ended up as a failure. Thus consistently being principled is harmfu...
^^^^
Line 9, column 704, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...onsibility to tackle them either through principles or by compromise, depends sol...
^^
Line 9, column 810, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...des, being too pliable or too unshakable on issues have their own demerits. So ef...
^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'besides', 'but', 'finally', 'first', 'hence', 'however', 'if', 'look', 'so', 'thus', 'while', 'after all', 'as to', 'in conclusion', 'kind of', 'on the other hand']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.209968186638 0.238963963785 88% => OK
Verbs: 0.173913043478 0.154291517835 113% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0827147401909 0.0886310499679 93% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0636267232238 0.0506014161523 126% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0445387062566 0.0449626384858 99% => OK
Prepositions: 0.104984093319 0.123526278965 85% => OK
Participles: 0.0413573700954 0.0379742944744 109% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.69246200298 2.82910677849 95% => OK
Infinitives: 0.050901378579 0.0316879551592 161% => OK
Particles: 0.00212089077413 0.0014075125626 151% => OK
Determiners: 0.0954400848356 0.0950106342287 100% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0275715800636 0.0245489744465 112% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0212089077413 0.0157978311181 134% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 5188.0 2899.98275862 179% => OK
No of words: 864.0 478.390804598 181% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 6.00462962963 6.0591788892 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.42161202166 4.65681771538 116% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.373842592593 0.369966551584 101% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.282407407407 0.285172536893 99% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.19212962963 0.207245337619 93% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.118055555556 0.136322040163 87% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.69246200298 2.82910677849 95% => OK
Unique words: 408.0 234.298850575 174% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.472222222222 0.492565540709 96% => OK
Word variations: 64.2551643799 56.8184620615 113% => OK
How many sentences: 44.0 21.1264367816 208% => Less sentences wanted.
Sentence length: 19.6363636364 23.7468607788 83% => OK
Sentence length SD: 51.5132324732 62.0618507366 83% => OK
Chars per sentence: 117.909090909 143.81877709 82% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.6363636364 23.7468607788 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.386363636364 0.728815259664 53% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.87931034483 102% => OK
Language errors: 11.0 7.71264367816 143% => OK
Readability: 47.8771043771 52.2641144681 92% => OK
Elegance: 1.26315789474 1.64547068916 77% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.571321388123 0.39480681544 145% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.0998180621254 0.11556216369 86% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0801682007794 0.0736162880345 109% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.447946739615 0.531340600358 84% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.15838689065 0.15197228837 104% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.181985642799 0.158818324754 115% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.109376490105 0.0851127212816 129% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.484664788416 0.388921930462 125% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.119994400675 0.0677916285025 177% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.406933149943 0.28015025965 145% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0781858412229 0.0610219844235 128% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 17.0 10.8591954023 157% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 15.0 5.30459770115 283% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 12.0 4.96264367816 242% => Less neutral sentences wanted.
Positive topic words: 15.0 8.10632183908 185% => OK
Negative topic words: 10.0 3.93390804598 254% => OK
Neutral topic words: 5.0 3.04597701149 164% => OK
Total topic words: 30.0 15.0862068966 199% => OK
--------------------------
Rates: 70.83 out of 100
Scores by essay E-rater: 4.25 Out of 6