Owing to the democratic process, more and more citizens have been enabled to make decision for the nation. People could vote for their favorate candidate, thus decide who should be the next leader. It becomes a controversial topic that whether the political leaders should compromise to the public opinion. While some people believe that, in order to be more influential, the leaders should follow the public opinion and forsake the principle. Others state that the effective leader should persist in the principles and objects tightly. Personally speaking, I agree more with the latter one. Among countless factors which support my position are the following conspicuous ones.
First of all, being committed to principles and goals is necessary factors which makes a leader effective. The reasons are that, sticking to the goals and principles could improve the charisma of a political leader, and in many cases leaders did not succumb to the public opinion, yet they were still outstanding. In my opinion, the best example is Abraham Lincoln, the former president of United States. Before the Civil War, many people repudiated Lincoln's action of emancipating the slaves, and the south meditated to be independent from the US. Lincoln stuck to the goal of uniting the country, and his persistence earned him plenty of supporters, with whom, the north finally won the war, the nation eschewed its collapse, and the equality of the society was to a great extent improved. Lincoln did not compromise his principle to the public opinion, and he has been regarded as a great leader of America.
Secondly, insisting on the principles and goals is sometimes more meanful to the leaders than compromising. This is mainly because that the public is a susceptible group, under many circumstances, there were only few individuals delivering their ideas, while others just echoing. Since the public could not access to the information as much as the leaders and politicians, citizens could hardly make critical judgement. However, the leader occupys the acme of the society, and he or she is much more experienced in solving social problems than ordinary people. Only if the peinciples and goals of the leader do not violate the public interests, insisting on them serves a more important role for the leader.
Admittedly, under some particular circumstances, compromising is capable of bringing about better result. Recently, the Scottish independence drew attention of people all over the world, the volting result is to remain the United Kindom as it was. This means the leader of Scotland should compromise his or her objecet. If the leader insisted on independence, regardless the public opinion, the public indignation will be provoked, and the society may become chaotic, and the leader will have to give up the position.
In conclusion, though in some situations the leaders have to compromise, being committed to principles and objects is more improtant and meanful to make a leader effective.