It is often said that a rope is only as strong as the sum of its threads. The same can also be said for democracy. The fundamental principle of democracy is that of equal representation, and so no politician has absolute power to effectively fullfill his goals without the will of the public behind him. Without public support, government officials cannot be elected, and even upon election, it is the intention of the democratic structure that very little can be done without widespread consensus. This is typefied by the outcome of the Separatist debate that raged in Canada in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The Bloc Quebecois, a then-influential provincial party in Quebec, advocated strongly for separation of the province and independence from Canada. However, in accordance with stable democracy, the government could not allow such action without first consulting the people. A referendum was held on the subject, in which 51% of participants voted against separation. Quebec remained a province of Canada, and the members of the Bloc were unable to be effective in their goals due to a lack of public support.
In 1945, the United States dropped two atomic bombs on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan. The decision, a result of years of secret government research and costing hundreds of thousands Japanese civilian lives, had instantaneous and immeasurably large effects on the entire world. Still, it cannot be said that the administration responsible for the move had the pre-determined and whole-hearted acceptance of the public. The classified nature of the project prevented public consultation on the matter, and the horrific loss of lives makes it doubtful that widespread public approval could have been achieved had it been sought. Nevertheless, it is undeniable that the politicians behind the atomic bomb were effective in achieving their goals. World War II, the bloodiest war ever fought on earth, was put to a quick and effective end, and the United States was established as an extremely powerful and advanced military force. In this case, politicians achieved effectiveness without requiring public support.
Most modern societies are founded on strong democratic principles, and these principles require that under stable circumstances, public acceptance is a prerequisite for political effectiveness. This is was demonstrated clearly by Separatist Referendum in Quebec, where the politicians of the Bloc Quebecois were ineffective in their goals due to a lack of public consensus. Still, in times of unprecedented difficulty, such as war, extreme measures must sometimes by taken without public consensus. As was the case with the atomic bombs in 1945, such measures can still be hugely effective, even when the opinion of the public has not been sought or won. It can then be said that although public acceptance always helps a politician be effective in peacetime, in times of war extenuating circumstances allow him to act through judgement alone.

Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter once stated that “An effective politician is one who can accurately represent society, and who works effectively toward achieving social goals.” Such a statement has become the dominant belief of citizens, especially in democratic nations. Regardless of representation, a democratic nation requires that a leader be publicly accepted; primarily on the basis that such a leader must have been elected by a majority of the population. As a result, the prompt is proven to be correct in a democratic nation, and public acceptance is met if the majority feels that a politician is effective. At the same time, factors external to the election can provide a pre-conceived notion of which political leaders are already considered effective. For example, John F. Kennedy was already a well-liked politician prior to his presidency, which could be attributed to his success in the senate as well as his father’s reputation as a successful politician an businessman. Therefore, an effective politician must be publicly accepted for the obvious reason of voting in democratic nations, but can also be more popular due to external influences such as previous success or personal relationships, as in the case with John F. Kennedy.

At the same time, a politician can be very effective without achieving the acceptance of a majority of the public. Such a case can be made for civil rights activist Martin Luther King Jr., who was a figurehead during the American Civil Rights Movement during the 1960s. Although King was not supported by most of the public, he was instrumental in the achievement of greater rights and equality for African Americans. His actions at the time were seen as rebellious and disruptive, and as a result, many citizens did not favour his ideals, but his effective leadership and influence as a politician during the Civil Rights movement ensured that African Americans be treated fairly politically, socially, and economically.

It is clear that a politician can achieve success regardless of public support. For a position such as Presidency in a democratic nation, public acceptance is required in order to achieve office, as a politician must be voted for by a majority of the population. However, protesting pre-existing laws or rallying for social change, as in the case of Martin Luther King, public acceptance is not a pre-requisite for political success. As a result, it is perhaps not necessarily public approval that determines the success of a politician, but rather the ability of a politician to achieve social equity, even if it requires unconventional methods.

Representation is a key aspect of most modern democracies. Constituents in a district or riding elect someone to be their voice in government and that person works to further the interests and quality of life for people who elected them. A politician is effective when they cause the most change in the lives and laws of the electorate. Often times this requires the public's support and trust in a politician. If the electorate believes the politician holds similar views to their own then they will offer less resistance to the changes he or she will bring to their lives. Pierre Trudeau, Prime Minister (PM) of Canada in the late 1960's and early 1980's, had much public support and enthusiasm. During his time as PM he instituted many reforms: he made divorce easier to get, eliminated the laws dealing with abortion, ensured the Federal government operated in both official languages (English and French), widened the social safety net, opened a diplomatic dialogue with Cuba and China and resisted the installation of American nuclear missiles in the Arctic. At the time, Trudeau had the support of the young Baby Boomer generation who for the most part shared his liberal views and supported his actions.

However, the popularity of a politician does not always correlate with effectiveness. Mikhail Gorbachev, Soviet Premier from 1985- 1991 entered office with a wave of public support. They believed he shared their views on the direction their country should go in. He promised to introduce free market elements into the economy, lessen censorship and pursue peace on the international stage. However, his reforms were not as effective as the public wanted and later in his term his public appeal lessened. Despite this, he was the most reform minded Soviet leader in a generation and the effects of his changes resulted in free expression of thought and the end of the Cold War. When he faced resistance from the public he held to his ideals and continued. He firmly believed the Soviet Union must open up to the world and reform.

An effective politician must sometimes make decisions that are contrary to the public will. This is done when the long term best interest of the nation out weigh the short term public perception. Gorbachev felt strongly for reform and relied on his ideals to guide him. If a politician relies on the ideals of the public then public support is crucial. If a politician loses public support but maintains his or her ideals which they hold strongly, then they can still be effective.

Score: 5.5/6

-As a quarky physics note, I believe that a rope is much stronger than the sum of its threads :)
-Great opening paragraph. Good definitions, very concise, good example that fit your argument.
-Again, a fantastic supporting paragraph. Great example and I love that you relate your example back to the argument!
-Resolution is good. I would have liked to have one sentence that says your resolution principle before you state talking about your examples
-Your essay could use a better transition between paragraphs.

Score: 3/6

-Try not to refer to "the prompt" in your essay. It is just bad form.
-Your supporting paragraph is ok. The big problem is that you defined effectiveness as achieving social goals, but then only talk about how popular JFK was and don't give any insight into how effective he was.
-Your refuting example is good, but you should develop it into your argument with a little more detail.
-The opening line of your resolution paragraph is bad. You refute it in the very next sentence.
-Your resolution principle is not bad, although I don't think you lay it out very well. I would have liked one concise sentence that sums up the principle.

Score: 3/6

-Good supporting paragraph
-Good refuting paragraph
-I don't really understand your resolution principle. I don't know what relying "on the ideals of the public" really means . It kind of sounds like if you want to do what the public would like done, then you need their support; but if you don't want to do what the public wants done, then you don't need their support. Which is a very odd sort of thing to say. You need to make your resolution more specific and relate it back to both of your examples.

In the democratic societies of today, it appears that a politician is only as strong as the support he/she has behind them. This than, would lead to the assumption that a politician must be accepted by at least a majority of the population if they plan lead a country effectively. Consider Canada's frequent minority governments, in which one party has received the largest percentage of the votes, but has not received over 50% of the votes. For example, the minority government might receive 40% of the votes while the two opposition parties receive 25% and 35% of the votes. The minority government will now find it more difficult to pass their proposals because they are accepted by less than 50% of the population, including less than 50% of the House of Commons. If Canada as a majority government, in which the government has managed to secure at least 50% of the votes, they will have an easier time passing their bills and rally support for their ideas because over half the public voted from them

However, in times of crisis or distress, there is often no time for discussion and debate surrounding the best decision, and regardless of the support of public, effective decisions can be made. An example would be the invocation of War Measures Act during the October Crisis of 1970 in Quebec. When the Front de Liberation du Quebec (FLQ) became violent in their effort to achieve their list of demands, and ultimately, the separation of Quebec from Canada, the current Prime Minister, Pierre Trudeau, advised the Governor General to evoke the War Measures act without public acceptance. While the invocation of the War Measures Act greatly impeded on citizens' rights and freedoms, given police and military forces extraordinary powers, it may have ultimately prevented the situation from becoming worse than it did.

For normal day-to-day discussion and debate between politicians in democratic countries, the party with the most support (i.e. the greatest public acceptance), and ideally more than 50% of the support, is going to be the most effective in achieving their goals, simply due to numbers alone. However, in times of crisis and danger, when the entire public does not have time to be consulted on a decision, a politician can still be effective in achieving their goals if their decision ultimately benefits the safety and protection of the public.

In politics, leaders often find themselves with a catch-22, trying to gain approval while making the right decisions at the same time. Citizens need to be in favour of a politician's decision in order for his or her's action to be productive. In most cases, a politician requires the approval of the public to cause political change. Public acceptance refers to a majority of people who approve of or are indifferent to a political decision. An effective policitian is able to bring about change to benefit his or her citizens. For example, in 2005, Ontario Premier Dalton Mcguinty legalized same-sex marriage. The majority of Ontario residents were in favour of this legalization and did not object. Residents saw marriage as a right that should be available to everyone. This demonstrates Mcguinty's effectiveness at changing the legal definition of marriage when he had the support of the public.

Although politicians often require the approval of a decision in order for it to be effective, a politician can also be active to solve a problem without the public's approval. For instance, during the October Crisis in 1970, Pierre Elliot Trudeau issued the War Measures Act in order to capture members of the FLQ who had terrorized parts of Quebec. The War Measures Act allowed the police to arrest any suspicious people without a warrant or evidence. This law was not received well by the public andmany began to look unfavourably upon Trudeau. Despite the objections of Canadians, the War Measures Act allowed the police to capture members of the FLQ and ensure the safety of citizens.Evidently, a politician does not always need the approval of the public in order to be effective.

It is a difficult task to determine in which instances a politician needs to please the public to be effective. Whether or not effectiveness depends on the approval of the public is determined by whether the political action is done in a time of order or a time of crisis. At the time of the legalization of same-sex marriage, there was ordee in Ontario and there was no threat to the safety of citizens. In this case, Mcguinty needed the support of the public to create political change. Trudeau put the War Measures Act into effect during a time of panic as a response to the physical threat posed by the FLQ. Trudeau was able to capture FLQ members and end there hold on Quebec without the approval of Canadians. In a time of crisis, public acceptance is not required for a politician to be effective, while in a time of order, public is required to effect political change.

Throughout the history of politics, many politicians have found much success from builing an army of supporters. In politics success depends largley on power, and power is based on how many people belive in you, and will vote for your cause. Public acceptance is reflected in vote count, such that a politicain who is accepted by the public will score many votes, when compared to one who has not been accepted by the public. In the game of politics a politician often needs to be widely accepted by the public in order for that politician to have an effective and therefore successful carreer. In 2009 Barak Obama was elected to be the first black President of the United States. Thirty years ago a black man would never have won the presidency election no matter how much more qualified he was to run the country then his opponent. The reason for this is, that America was not yet ready to accept a black President. If public opions had not changed then Mr. Obama would not have won his election and his political carreer would not be what it is to day.

There are times that a politician did not have or need to have need public acceptance to be effective. Setting the definition of a politician as; one who has a hand in changing the policies of a country, the best example of such is Marin Luther King Jr.. Mr. King through much activist work, managed to persuade the American government to change their policies regarding the treatment of minorities. With little to no public acceptance a large revolt against the racism in the United States resulted in a win for the black community, as well as other minorities facing terrible prejudices. With very little public acceptance Mr. King proved to be verry polically effective in his attempts.

Understanding when a politician's effectivness depends on public acceptance or not is easy to defined. If that politician's success depends on him winning an election, then they will absolutley need much public acceptance and support. However if a politician is attempting to make a statement that has not yet been accepted, and does not require voters support then they will find that public acceptance is not required to be effective.

Being a politician can sometimes be more of an art then a science. Taking on the major job of leading a county, state, or even country can be quite difficult and demanding on the integrity and perseverance of the respective leader. The art of the job is seen through the politician’s ability to gain wide public acceptance. This acceptance can be crucial in the maintenance of an ordered and stable community, and can often judge the effectiveness with which the politician leads. This public acceptance can most noticeably be seen in a democratic society where the peoples are responsible for the election of their leader. In the 2008 US presidential election, the Obama administration campaigned and plugged the Democrat party as a healthy ‘change’ from the already in power Republican Party. Obama was able to win the majority of the vote by gaining acceptance on issues such as the war in Iraq. Many Americans have friends and family fighting in Iraq and agreed on Obama’s decision to bring troops home as soon as possible. This agreement on the Iraq war, as well as many other issues, gained Obama the respect of the nation, and public acceptance, which ultimately allowed him to be elected as the 44th president of the US.

There are instances when public acceptance is irrelevant to the effectiveness of a politician’s ability to lead a nation. One of the most notable examples of this situation is in Fidel Castro’s case in the Republic of Cuba. In 1965, after the Cuban revolution, Castro became the leader of the communist party that was heading Cuba. Despite many of the citizens not being happy with the struggle in Cuba, Castro was able to effectively govern the country. Castro put in place a good education program, which required all children to attend school to at least secondary school. Castro also made healthcare available publically to all citizens, giving Cuba one of the best health care systems in the world. Castro’s effective leading of a communist country where he is not widely accepted shows that there are instances where public acceptance is not crucial.

Although a tough issue to handle, the public acceptance of a politician is almost always in favour of the politician and can help with leading the specific society. In the case of a democratic nation, the public acceptance of the politician running for the leading position is crucial, because without the acceptance, the politician is unlikely to be elected and therefore unable to effectively lead the people. Obama was able to gain the American peoples acceptance, and now runs one of the most stable nations in the world. However, in a communist nation, the appointed leader is not dependent on the majority vote, so whether the people accept him or not is irrelevant to his effectiveness as a leader. Fidel Castro is not widely liked in Cuba, however still manages to run an ordered and stable society.