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

“Leadership has different styles”. In other words, the research has shown that leadership qualities can be exhibited through different execution styles namely, through going along with the people, following up with demagogue or be pedantic. However, when it comes to measuring its effectiveness, the context or the background in which it is being exercised is matter. The prompt offers two contrasting views on the effectiveness of a political leader, i.e., through succumbing to public opinion or through restricted to the principles. In my view, the political leader who practices austerity in principles would become more effective in delivering what has been assured before election. The reasons justifying my view are mentioned in the following paragraphs.

First of all, a political leader must affirm on his principle to achieve financial and economic prosperity for his country which would make his position tenable and should not heed to public opinion. For instance, when new Government took over, it decided to bring down the budget deficit of India in order to provide sustainability and assurance to foreign investors that their money would be in safe hands while ignoring the public opinion of making huge spending. The result was that investors responded to commitment of Government and invested USD 56 bn in three years from 2015 to 2018 which created jobs, new companies and large tax base. Further, when the same Government showed to the world business leaders that it is firm on opening up of its economy leaving the public opinion of not allowing foreign companies into India behind, business leaders established their presence in India in different sectors and helped India to tackle falling output and employment. Therefore, public opinion must not be attended by political leaders since they have potential to derail the national financial and economic interests.

Secondly, when it comes to national security or the issue of sovereignty, political leaders must not digress from their principles of protecting it by any means necessary, though public opinion may come and intend to prevent it with the objective to harm or break the national society into pieces. For instance, when Government of India resolute to face Maoists in 1996, a local insurgents in India, by taking the bull by the horns approach, India witnessed Backlash since the protesters were funded by these insurgents. However, the approach of the Government mitigated the situation and helped India to achieve peaceful society after a brief chaos and thereafter, the citizen started to feel safety and security. Further, when lately Government of India decided not to take part in any diplomatic talks with its neighbouring country, i.e., Pakistan to resolve the Kashmir issue, large section of Muslims in India took it to the streets violently. However, the Government was committed in its manner to state that insurgency and talks cannot go simultaneously, thus, builded up the pressure on Pakistan to accede to What India demands and as a result Pakistan had to stop supporting rebel group in India and the region of Kashmir started to feel prosperity once again. Therefore, public opinion may prevent the Government to take stringent actions on insurgents, thus must not be listened to by a political leader.

Finally, the intent and resolution of Government to tackle the issue of corruption in public system pays price in the short run but would bring in fruits in the long run. For example, when Government of India promulgated a Right to Information law in India in 2005, it provided the confidence to citizen and opportunity to citizens to file an appeal against any Government authority for delaying the processing of public matter. This law initially faced criticism since public opinion was influenced by the Government officers, thus wanted to stop its implementation. However, Government sticked to its path and citizen started to realise that it is for their benefits. Further, the establishment of e-Governance cell in every department of Government witnessed chaos initially since public opinion was that large section of Indian society is not equipped with internet or computers, thus would even make the public matters difficult to process. However, the Government resolution to implement it across all villages of India made the processing of files and cases transparent and time bound, thus made the life of citizen better. Therefore, public opinion may not know what the Government intentions are or what it may bring in during the next 5 years, thus, following the path of austerity is advisable.

Of course some would argue that effective leadership can also be shown by succumbing to the public opinion such as meeting the demands of public to create employment, to handle or stem the flow of immigrants or to create better health and education facilities. However, the proponent of this idea must understand that public opinion is always diverse and not converging to the common goal, thus would make even difficult for the Government to consider to whom to listen to. For example, stemming the immigrants would divide the society into some people favouring it since they are enjoying what belongs to the native citizens and some people objecting it since some of them are their relatives. Therefore, while concluding, Government must be determined to follow its principles.