Good leaders are good followers.
The statement above connotes that leaders are not only rulers, but are also some time expected to be followers. In my opinion, I believe this statement is absolutely correct. However, this is not always true, as there are some arguments which justify the fact that followers have to follow leaders, whether by implication or coercion.
First of all, leaders are members to a group or organization or some community in which they are expected to, either through elections, selection or even use of force, govern and control the issues in relation to the place they have that power.
By democratic principle, leaders must have been elected before they could take over that power. Those leaders sometime have to follow what their people want, if they should win a majority vote. For instance, gay right protesters who form the large number of voters, in most countries, influence the law making power of their parliaments, as they would not vote for any candidate, until he agrees with them on the condition that he would fight for their rights before the house. This is because, in such a case, leaders are produced by followers.
However, in some situations, followers are produced by leaders. For example, in the event of fear, leaders have greater influence over their followers. They make laws for the people to follow, and punish them when they disobeyed. Additionally, leaders could also be followed when hope has been put upon them. As long as the people have faith in the leaders, they will promise to follow them. Such is mindset agreement.
Finally, the point on whether leaders should be followers or followers should stick to fellowship is a matter that requires greater consideration. At all stage, the leaders must adjust themselves, by looking at the responses from the followers, whether they agree with their standards or not. And in the use of force, such has to be applied with consistency. Continually, followers must fulfill the loyalty due...