Any leader who is quickly and easily influenced by shifts in popular opinion will accomplish little.

We always need to pay for something we are supposed to attain. Change is costly, and it is not without oppositions, since many seem the price of the change unjustifiable. Here only a consistent leader would usher in a new era who is tolerable to the shifts of popular idea against him/her. However, leaders also should also not be isolated to the shifts of popular opinion not to become a dictator.

To begin with, looking at the future of their nations, the great leaders do not easily follow the vacillation of the ideas on their society and remain determined to fulfill the positive changes required for their society. The greater a change is, the more oppositions should the leader tolerate. Think about Abraham Lincoln. This man stays on his decisions and never let the United States of America to thrive at the expense of ignoring the downtrodden slaves. Despite that such decision provoked a civil war during the presidency of Abraham Lincoln, this man advocated the rights of human and changed the United States of America forever.

On the other hand, when leaders are totally isolated from the influences of shifts in popular opinions, can become dictators. Rather than being reluctant, when popular opinion shifts against their leaders, leaders are prone to accomplish nothing. Last Shah of Iran was a dictator that every movement must have passed from his filter to become legitimate. People began to shift toward their rights _by the changes in the generation and influence of media_ and when they faced disregards from their leader, they made their revolution and ousted Shah. Hence by being isolated from people and disregarding shifts in public opinions and their wants, leaders can be disqualified.

Finally, leaders should strike a balance between concerning shifts in popular opinions and also be consistent about their goals and the horizons for their society. Consider Iran. While having atomic power is the right of every country, the Iranian aggressive policy toward this goal led to the sanctions on Iran and mired Iranian in an economic recession. Then, public opinion shifts against the having the atomic power; People were saying that there are other important priorities to concern and such an insistence on the atomic plan is not worth it. Iranian political authorities show flexibility and are consulting with other countries, to compromise their ideals provided that the sanctions are lifted. Otherwise, they might have lost their legitimacy because of neglecting popular opinions of suffering people.

In short, it is advisable to strike a balance between being consistent toward an aim and also to some degree have flexibility toward popular opinions in order to achieve well. Neither being easily influenced by public opinion would be fruitful nor is it advisable that leaders totally disregard shifts in popular opinion.