Leaders, beware of ‘Yes Men’

Political power allocates economic resources and opportunities, and, as such, it attracts all types of people with a wide range of motivations. When a leader rises to the top, especially through a sweeping electoral mandate, the attraction becomes even stronger. People want to be close to authority, to be seen as insiders, and to share its glow. Some come with competence and conviction; others bring experience and moral courage. Many, however, arrive with a far simpler calculation: proximity to power brings personal gain. Among them, the most dangerous companions of power are those who never disagree, never question, and never challenge decisions, and who tell leaders only what they want to hear. These are often called “Yes Men.”

The landslide victory of the BNP in the recently held general election, under the leadership of Tarique Rahman, has reshaped Bangladesh’s political landscape. For many citizens, it marks a transition and a chance to strengthen democratic institutions. However, history shows that overwhelming mandates can carry risks. Landslide victories often tempt leaders to believe that their authority is beyond challenge. In such situations, honest feedback can slowly give way to flattery, and loyalty may come to mean unquestioning obedience. While praise may be reassuring, constructive, thoughtful, evidence-based and respectful dissent is far more valuable as it protects leaders from costly mistakes. Understandably, no one likes to hear “I told you so” or be told directly that they are wrong. Yet, giving and receiving advice, feedback and even criticism are essential to effective leadership and sound decision-making. Pointing out policy weaknesses or raising uncomfortable truths about governance is part of responsible citizenship. Sadly, such discourse is often viewed as disloyal or unpatriotic by many leaders.

In many societies, including Bangladesh, criticism is often misunderstood. Constructive criticism helps us recognise our mistakes and improve, yet we frequently fail to accept it with grace. We assume that any criticism, whether about a cricketer’s batting technique, a friend’s personal choice, or someone’s manners, must carry an ulterior motive. Similarly, when citizens disagree with government decisions, criticise leaders or write unflattering opinion pieces, they are quickly labelled “unpatriotic,” “conspirators” or “anti-state.” Such reactions discourage open discussion and create fear and silence. Silence is dangerous for any government.

The truth is that leaders who surround themselves with people brave enough to say “this may be wrong” are far better equipped to govern than those shielded by constant applause. Yet, human ego, especially when reinforced by power, resists discomfort, preferring harmony over honesty. As Yes Men tighten their grip around a leader, they begin to control access. Alternative voices are filtered out, critics are portrayed as enemies, and inconvenient facts are buried under optimistic stories. Slowly, the leader’s world shrinks and becomes isolated. They hear only good news. Data is adjusted to appear positive. Warning signs are ignored. Meetings turn into rituals of agreement. Gradually, confidence turns into arrogance, and authority becomes entitlement. Leaders begin to believe they cannot be wrong.

Bangladesh has already seen where this path leads. The 15-and-a-half-year rule of Sheikh Hasina presents a glaring example of how prolonged power, combined with sycophancy, weakens judgement. Over time, her leadership became isolated within a narrow circle of loyalists who equated criticism with disloyalty. Institutions meant to act as checks were weakened or politicised. Public grievances over corruption, economic pressure, electoral credibility, and shrinking civic space were ignored or suppressed. A carefully managed image of stability replaced honest engagement with reality. When the collapse came, it appeared sudden only to those who had stopped listening. For ordinary citizens, the warning signs had been visible for years.

Ironically, overwhelming electoral mandates often speed up this decline. Landslide victories can convince leaders that they alone represent the will of the people, turning elections from a tool of accountability into a source of self-validation. Bangladesh has seen this before. The elections of 1973 and 2001, for example, produced massive victories, and both periods ended badly. Power became concentrated, dissent was sidelined, and corruption grew. Each time, leaders believed they were acting in the nation’s best interest and felt secure. Each time, that belief was proven false.

The BNP’s current mandate offers both opportunity and responsibility. A strong mandate provides a chance to rebuild institutions, restore trust, and reset political culture. It is also a test of restraint. The real challenge is not defeating opponents at the ballot box, but governing in a way that prevents the return of authoritarian habits. This requires leaders who welcome disagreement, encourage debate, and protect independent thinking. It calls for advisers valued for their competence and integrity, not just loyalty. Above all, it demands humility and an understanding that electoral success does not mean people voted for the political leaders because they are morally perfect.

Therefore, leaders should avoid Yes Men not only for their own sake, but to ensure that institutions remain healthy. Political parties must allow internal discussion. Institutions must function without fear. The media and civil society should be able to raise concerns openly. These mechanisms strengthen governance rather than weaken it. The lesson is simple: leaders do not fall when criticism is loud, but rather when there is only silence.

As Bangladesh enters a new political chapter, the true test of leadership will lie in how carefully leaders listen to those who disagree. History shows that nations suffer most when leaders choose comfort over truth. If Bangladesh is to avoid repeating its political cycles, those in power must resist the comfort of constant applause. The real strength of leadership lies in the courage to hear the truth. Therefore, leaders should beware of Yes Men. They are often the first sign of decline.

Abu Afsarul Haider is an entrepreneur. He can be reached at afsarulhaider@gmail.com.

Views expressed in this article are the author's own. 

Follow The Daily Star Opinion on Facebook for the latest opinions, commentaries, and analyses by experts and professionals. To contribute your article or letter to The Daily Star Opinion, see our guidelines for submission.