Any leader who is quickly and easily influenced by shifts in popular opinion will accomplish little.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In

It is popularly believed that any leader who is easily impacted by shifts in popular opinion cannot accomplish much. Although this idea has a plethora of proponents who point on populist governments which have failed to do their job well, I disagree with the issue due to the fact that we live in democratic societies which have elected official whose work is to serve people and this task is literally impossible if the leaders are deaf to people's voice.

To begin with, the history has many examples which colorfully illustrate an idea that leaders who is quickly influenced by changings in popular opinion are not effective. Perhaps, the best example of such a situation, we may find in recent history of Greece which has undergone a serious hardships which were caused by inefficient and incompetent work of their politicians, their situation was worsen by Germans' pressure which forced the country to cut severely its spending. As an answer on this situation, Greece's people gave power via elections to populist party which promises to quickly react on popular opinion of public and promises the demos what they want from disobeying the implemented policy to returning national currency. However, although this government has majority in parliament, and many of crucial ministers such as financial one and prime minister are members of the party, they do not manage to succeed. In other words, government which is guided by shifts in public’s mood indeed cannot accomplish much because crowd's desires often are not realistic and have little connection with real situation and thus they cannot be fulfilled.

However, government which pays no attention to public's opinion cannot exist as well. If government has failed to satisfy people's needs and desires, the government has only two options to become a totalitarian country as North Korea or to lose their power. To prove this idea we may take a look at the history of tsar Russia. Nikola the second was deprived of power because he was deaf to people's needs, for example, during his celebration of becoming a tsar an accident happened which toll was tens of thousands of people, the tsar neglect the calamity and continue the ceremony. This example and the tsar's end - he was shot- have illustrated that to be blind to people's opinion is not option either.

However, the third option exists, to pay attention to public's opinion but avoid reacting on it automatically. Probably the best instance of this policy may be found in the USA. In fact, the government has carefully monitored people's opinion via conducting researches and pools. This data allows them to feel public's mood and take it into consideration. For example, when a white officer shot to death an unarmed African-American, the public was furious, and the government reacted by demonstrating that they try to solve the problem. The crucial moment is that American government manages to converse with country's people and at the same time, government manages to accomplish their work well.

In conclusion, a leader cannot blindly obey people's will as well as one cannot neglect it either because in both cases a governor will be not able to accomplish much; perhaps, leaders ought to pay attention to public attention and take it into consideration but do not follow it mechanically; it seems that interaction between people and government is the key to successful governance.