Who is the one person to dictate to others that everyone must be their own leaders of their lives at all times, and that they shouldn’t be a follower? Not an anarchist—and I don’t know that I have encountered a leftist who has taken that radical a position, but I write this in anticipation of—and against—such a polarizing point that is arguably quite anti-anarchist. So to recap and put the question into a statement: there should be no person telling other people what they should and shouldn’t do.
With such a situation allowed for, an anarchist society allows for both leaders and followers. Anyone who holds the anarchist ideals should deeply consider that many of us at times are, and may feel the need to be, followers (think especially of the infant/childhood condition of existence). There is nothing wrong with leaders and followers, just so long as the followers aren’t being coerced into being such, and there is no time commitment that keeps them bound to follow past the present moment in which they are choosing to follow. There is no contract, no obligation, that a student should have to a teacher to continue being a student; nor does the teacher have to remain a teacher if there is a sudden urge to stop being a teacher and become a student, or leave the dynamic completely. Options are always open to all persons, and the moment that a follower wants to lead themselves, or follow a different lead, is the moment they can.
There are some historical/futurical cautions to be aware of with the leader, follower dynamic. Coercion has often existed and put contracts/shackles unfairly on participants (not just the peasants, but the heirs to the throne who would rather relinquish their power). Landlords in medieval times abused the leader/follower tendencies among humans to create the shitstorm of perpetual servitude, whereby over many generations the famous quote of Steve Biko is rendered true: “The most potent weapon of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed”
It’s as if servitude morphs from being the symptom of a structure to an organic and perfectly natural occurrence. We can allow for monarchs, just so long as the true meaning of “mon” is kept with a single person, temporary to the situation (I’m thinking of an even more temporary form than Roman/Greek executive dictators), and the monarchy is not passed on arbitrarily to an heir, but that the followers choose their new leaders—the best case being them maturing to choose themselves!