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

In the era of democracy, political leaders are chosen by public itself. They work for public and do their best to solve public problems and for welfare of public. But sometimes they may find themselves in state of dilemma where they have to choose between principles and public opinion for particular decision. At this stage a good leader will take the side which will be more appropriate in the given circumstances. As they are chosen by public, they have to listen to public opinion also. But on the other hand, everything can’t be judged using this approach, sometimes a leader has to follow particular laws and principles. So everything at last is left to acumen of leader.

Political leaders are bound to service of public. People choose a leader or a representative who takes their problem and try to solve it and if necessary, takes it to higher authority. It is public who chose the leader so it is important that a leader should listen to public opinion too. Because public saw you as an ideal candidate so you must do everything for them. Therefore if necessary, a leader must learn to yield to public opinion rather than sticking to set of principles because if public is not getting benefitted from those set of principles, then what is a leader’s role in solving their problems.

But it is not always true that a leader should yield to public opinion. A major difference between a public and leader is the way the both thinks. There is obviously something in a leader by virtue of which he stands out of the crowd. It is a leader’s duty to consider every face of the problem and show good sense of judgment. A leader knows it better what is good and what is bad for public. Public will only see the problem at surface and provide opinion based on what they see. But a leader will go fathom deep in problem and will come up with solution which may not be in accordance with public opinion but may be the best solution. So in this case a leader who wouldn’t yield to the public opinion will be more effective than the one who would yield.

But it seems more logical to yield to public opinion and abandon the principles for sake of compromise. A society will be prosperous if its people will be happy with the law and order and in order to see people happy a political leader may have to make compromises sometimes. For e.g. if a new traffic regulation is being implemented in a city which is not fruitful to people and people have another good alternate, then it is responsibility of leader to listen to their opinion too and consider every aspect of it. Then only a leader’s effectiveness will reflect in real life. Another example could be of introduction of new budget. If people want government to spend more on sanitation rather than transportation, leader should consider their opinion. Public knows better about their surrounding rather than a leader. Hence it is necessary for leader to yield to public opinion rather than being dogmatic.

At last it can be concluded that if public is choosing the leaders then it is leader’s duty to listen to public opinion rather than sticking to principles all the time. If public doesn’t like something based on principles then an effective leader would consider it and definitely yield to their opinion.