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.

Politics is no game, win or lose, it hurts everyone. The ones that have the power, the power to either make or break our governments are the ones in charge – and we mustn’t leave them to their own devices. The prompts put forward two opinions, and I mostly agree with the first view for three reasons as it states that, for an effective governance, the political leaders should give in to the public opinion. However, I concede with the second view when there are extreme cases where a leader must not surrender to the masses wishes. Firstly, leaders who don’t yield often make rash decisions that plunge the country into chaos. A paragon in this case, Adolf Hitler. When he was in power, his absolute leadership and rules dragged Germany through the mud. If it wasn’t the gruelling end of World War II, Adolf Hitler could have unfathomably ruined the face of Germany forever. His mortifying decisions and even so horrible principles left Germans in nothing but a dilapidated state of despair. His despotic rulership still brings chills down our spine for his ruthless ideals and morals put people through absolute hell. Here, the view of a leader following the “my way or highway” route resulted in years of trauma for the people subjected to it. In autocratic dictator settings, having the leader follow only his objectives and not have any room for public opinion can hurt this leader and its country for years to heal. Secondly, by definition, a functioning democracy works on the basis of an open line of communication for conveying people's message. The phrase ‘government of the people, by the people, for the people’ emphasizes this idea even further. Leaders who give into this idea and agree to follow the masses' opinions, it should lead them to a longer tenure of their electorate. The longer the leader does stay, the more effective their plans for their people will be. The longer the leader stays, the longer he can reinforce his own plans for the nation and inturn help the nation do exponentially well. Albeit, there are times when the leader should take a call between their principles or the general opinion and a good leader is on that knows when to choose theirs over the other common idea proposed. For example, the covid-19 pandemic swept most nations with a pernicious wave and have left most nations around the world in shackles due to the lockdown restrictions. The compulsory mask mandate and the nation-wide lockdown exacerbated the situations for the people as the impediments caused by it were copious. The backlash in the form of protest was raging like wildfire all over the world. However, initially however polarising the public's opinion about this covid restriction was, later the shift to a positive opinion from the masses was a significant relief to the political leaders and the healthcare system. It was celebrated by people as a difficult byt necessary move taken to relieve the stress on the already stressed health sector. Adversity being yet another ideal litmus test for an effective leader, proves how the political leaders sticking to their principles for a devastating situation as such was judicious and even more life saving for their countries. In summary, having a leader who chooses their people's wishes or their own principles and makes the right choice according to the situation, wins the day. However, this argument being a complex one rests on its circumstances to make an ideal decision. Leaning towards submitting into the peoples wishes at last, the choice of our political leaders today shapes our tomorrow.