Topic: Who makes a country what it his?The Leaders or the led? - page 2. (Read 371 times)

shift responsibility? What do you mean by that?
The leaders of a country don't just bear the title of leaders for nothing. The previledge of leading people comes not just with previledges but also responsibility. If you have a leader that takes the need of his led as his problem, he will set out systems that will help meet those needs. As much as those that are led have thier own personal responsibilities to themselves, the leaders also have thier own responsibilities to the people they are leading. This is just like refusing to provide for your household because you feel the child needs to be responsible for himself even when by the virtue of your role as a father, you've been given a lot of things that will enable you take care of the kids effectively. Both the leaders and the citizens can't be left out in this discussion and calling on one to be accountable doesn't mean you're shifting responsibility.

People deserve the power they have. In fact, when we talk about good/bad leaders or society, we are simply trying to shift responsibility.

The word leader means that they have a lot of responsibilities to carry out in order to make sure that things are done properly for the success of the country. Leaders are the ones to make the country a good place to live in and make life easy for the citizens through the way they handle economical and political decisions of the country. Why I will not put much blame on the citizens is that if government impose a law and it is broken, that person will be punished. No one is bigger than the government meaning the citizens cannot decide for the government.

A country can move forward properly by the person who has the right leadership.  To me both leaders and leadership are equally important to take a country forward.  A good girl gets people who pay special attention to what they want and work for their good and bad.  Leaders lead in doing what will be good for the people and the people follow that path.   Therefore, both the proper leadership and its leadership play an equally important role in the development of a country.

The leaders are the ones that made a country what it is op, because if the leaders are not doing well in a country,it will be hard for the country to have a good economic in the land but if the country is doing well in the country show that they have a potential leaders that is making the system to work. Just take a look around the countries that their economics is doing well today, you will know that their leaders has taken a good decision to bear a good name in their various offices to make things like education systems, transportation system, agriculture system, political system work which are the major things that make a country economic to grow  faster.

Well, I know that citizens are also part of those people that make the country to develop because no matter what leaders do to make the economic to grow in a country, if the citizens refuse to support the growth, it will not going to work for the leader to receive the reward or bear a good name for the development of the country.

In a democratic system, the government is voted into power by the majority, thus the government represents the people. It is the government that controls the human, material and financial resources. And from my observation, every nation has sufficient resources that can sustain its citizens and make them enjoy a good standard of living. The reason for poverty is the failure of the government to maximize and equally distribute the commonwealth of the nation.

Corruption has been identified as the main reason why most developing nations are backwards economically. In a corrupt nation, it is not just the government that is corrupt, the people are also involved in shady deals. But the simplest way to stop corruption is to vote in an incorruptible leader. The fish starts decaying from the head, and corrupt leaders institutionalise corruption.


Some wars are not the fault of the government. Some nations have expansionist or conquest ideologies. They are just driven to invade to attack less powerful nations because they want to control their resources. In such a situation, a leader will have no option but to choose war.

How does leaders emerge? If you can answer this question correctly, it'll definitely give you clue to answer your question. The success or otherwise of any country lies on the shoulders of both the leaders and the followers (led as you put it). It is collective work from both parties i.e the leaders and the followers. Followers choose people to represent/lead them irrespective of government setting they're operating apart from military rule.

If they choose a leader who is capable of making policies that'll bring development, they'll be applaud for making a right choice and if it is otherwise, they'll be blame for choosing a wrong person to lead them. In as much as leaders are considered as the pilot of a nation, they can not rule an empty land without followers. To make a country what it is in every nation is a responsibility of both the rulers and rules.

And what country are we talking about?

Nothing, everything will be resolved sooner or later. There are already more or less movements towards this.

The economy system of a country is overruled by the implementation of the leaders as in the portfolio of the government there are jurisdictions and offices in charge of its decision making with the professional economy analysts working with the official bodies periodically in negations of achieving an economic goal

Stil, there are still arms in the government upholding strategic controls in the exercises of securities levels which determines the fate of a country either way to maintain orderliness of peace not to be distabilized by crisis.

All these are official offices of the governments representing the masses whom are to be followers while the leaders being a he decision makers are in the position to control and fix the societies from disorderliness.

So, at any course, whatever outcome from the government is an instigation of the leader as the masses are just subject but also has the influence to duty the leaders based on the virtue of power belonging to the masses but though... To an extend, the power of the people over the leaders are limited and quit unfortunate too that the leaders are sometimes ignorant to the welfares of the masses which becomes a mess to the societies where the leaders folds their hands while things goes astray. Most times the inconveniences are architects from the sole leaders all for selfish interests.

The leadership of a country involves all the activities of that country as well as the economic and educational system which are decided by the elected leaders. The concerned departments work under the orders of the executive department. In a democratic political system, elected officials are elected by direct vote of the people and they are responsible for conducting activities according to the wishes of the people. When a country's policy gives more priority to foreign affairs in most cases they adopt a policy of foreign war which is harmful to that country's economy. For example, the United States' foreign policy is to try to maintain its supremacy over every country in the world. Making war between one country and another is an obstacle to establishing world peace. Peace and War It mainly depends on the country's elected leaders and state policies which are changeable.

 It's majorly the leaders. Where I come from, most times the people do not have a say after an election must have been carried out and as such when decisions are made, it often affects the masses more than it does the leaders.
The essence of voting in leaders is so they will be like the spokesman, carrying out the wishes of the masses and ensuring good governance but with how corruption has eaten deep into most nations, all they (the leaders) are concerned about is themselves so often when you hear that a country is retrogressing, it's as a result of the bad decisions taken by the leaders.

Any country or nation is what has managed to turn into because of the people who live within it, in my opinion. Besides, in the case of western democracies, is the people who is supposed to choose their leaders, and each people have the leaders they deserve.
If the quality, education and level of intelligence of the people is low then they are more likely to be manipulated and deceived by demagogs and strongmen who will seek power through any means, on the other hand, if the the population of the same country is highly educated, have a high level of culture and love for their nation, then they are prepared to spot demagogs and keep them out of power, allowing actually prepared people to assume control of the nation and lead them to prosperity.
My country, Venezuela is a good example on how people can be manipulated and deceived by a small party in order to get in power and then steal as much money as possible coming from gold and oil.

If we swapped this naturally rich country with the people of Japan (which is a fairly sterile island), they would turn Venezuela into a superpower in less than a decade, because their culture and discipline is better than ours.

Both has important roles. But as for the leaders of the countries, they're the major drivers of what's happening in the country for everything and for its future. Decisions of theirs really plays the part of how its citizens are going to be. While our individual paths are being determined by us but these opportunities that are coming in is also because of how they're welcoming the investors and being friendly to the other nations.

While us as the majority if living in a democratic country, we are voting for who's going to drive our country. And we all know the roles of what the leader must do. Have a good relationship with other countries and get some good trades from them, maintain peace and order, food security, maintain good economic status, etc. So, if we as majority voted for the wrong guy, we also have played that important part of electing the wrong person that has driven us to the problematic status of our countries in all of its aspects.

What makes a country what it is can only come from the leadership of that country, they make the rules and they're the ones that sets the pace of how the country is run. The rest of the people in the country follows their lead and every decisions that the government takes affects them in one or more ways. Countries that have proactive leaders will experience prosperity and security but in countries where they have mediocres as leaders you'll always see stagnancy and backwardness which brings poverty to their citizens. This is why in many poor countries those cabals that benefits from the impoverished state of their economies will always make sure that their countries will never have good leadership that will benefit the people. It's not easy to succeed and enjoy good life in countries where they have bad leaders

No one is perfect, but there are examples where the government does one evil, Russia for example.

If an economy is bad it's assumed that it's because the leaders of the country do not set right economic policies in place.

If a nation is at war it's assumed that it's because of the decision of the leaders.

If the educational system is faulty it's assumed that it's because of the decision of the leaders and even when a country is doing well in the global stage in sports, academics and other areas, it's still all about the leaders.

Is it the leaders of a country that makes them good, bad, at peace or in war? Or is it the led who are the majority that determines what becomes of a nation.