please critique this essay

[dicapino]

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

 

 

An effective leader should be able to meet the needs of the society; as such, leaders must hold fast to their principles and objectives rather than vacillate due to public opinion. Leaders like Abraham Lincoln, Mahatma Ghandi and Martin Luther King have shown us that the effectiveness of a leader is dependent on steadfastness to principles and views.

 

 

Abraham Lincoln, the 16^th American President, was steadfast to his fight against the abolition of slavery in United States throughout his political career. Before becoming president his opinion was unpopular with his republican party, and that lost him a senate seat. But with time and with the use of his genuine rhetoric he was able to appeal to his party, and the public that the American Constitution makes all men equal. Thus, he won the election based on his views and he did not disincline from his opinions while in power. He was able to force the 13^th amendment that abolished slavery. He stands as one of the greatest American President of all time. History honours leaders that do not vacillate on their views and opinions.

 

 

 

Also, consider another American Martin Luther King, the leader of black- America push for social reforms. His adherence to non-violent protest throughout his part in the struggle has made his name forever written in gold in American history. At a period when public inclination was to use violence and radical means to get the much needed reforms, he favoured peaceful protests, labour strikes, sit-ins, and general civil disobedience. If he had taken to violent means his cause would have been defeated. Thus, even after his demise his followers still kept to his views and much of the needed reforms were gradually actualised, and this culminated in producing the first black American president some 40 years later.

 

 

 

Mahatma Ghandi, the great Indian nationalist, fought for the independence of India from the British by also employed non-violent civil disobedience, just like King. Even before India, as a lawyer in South Africa he fought for the rights of minority Hindus, and blacks using protests and strikes. He stayed glued to his views, when Indians favoured violence and he also propagated dialogue to quell ethnic and religious tension. He was able to win the hearts of many Indians, both Hindus and Muslims because his methods where very effective at bringing the required change. He bears the tag of ‘numero uno’ human rights leader and the father of the Indian nation.

 

 

 

Although proponents against my views argue that leaders should always heed to public opinion. I believe that always trying to please the public on all issues is a sign of weakness on the part of the leader, and their opponents can take that as an opportunity. Take the example of the use of nerve gas on Syrian civilians, as the United States threatened reprisal attacks, some world powers were against this, and only a deal on the destruction of all the chemicals quelled the situation. If the United States had backed out countries like Iran would have been emboldened.

 

 

 

These great leaders have shown that effectiveness is dependent on how steadfast the leaders are to their principles and opinion. As long as their views are genuine it will find adherents in the public.