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

What if the nation is attacked? Is this also a decision of its leader?

You're oversimplifying this.

A country is a mix of the leading and the lead. Remember that the led choose the leaders, unless you live in a dictatorship, or a monarchy. Technically, the people can always rebel, so if like we see in Russia, they silently support Putin, whatever he does falls on them.

Both the citizens and government which is the leader plays a very important role in making the countries more better to call it a home, though government plays 99% roles in making sure the wellbeing of all the citizens are taking care of but is sad that most government are the reason why there citizens are suffering because politics has become a virus into some countries government whereas people who really have the mindset in making there country better will be denied to become the leader even when they merited it but in one way or another they will manipulate the whole results, which is why we are having so many bad government because whenever they enter leadership there subject always go through a lot of hardship when the government have the power to make things easy, so actually is the leader that have the power to make there country in any standard they want whether good or bad.

Therefore, it is time for Putin to end his adventure.

It is the right of the citizens to elect a good leader right?Now, I've seen corrupt citizens (politicians) elect a leader of their choice for their own selfish desires and they control the leader to do their biding. Even a good leader can be manipulated. Like you said, a good leader can and should correct his citizens. But what if these citizens are more powerful than the leader do you think the leader stands a chance in making corrections?

 It is true that the government compromises of a lot of members with different purposes, I can boldly say that some of those members with different purposes does more harm than good and we all as citizens put the blame on the leader. Most of these government board members after making good decisions for the country with the president could turn and change things to benefit them alone without the notice of the president. A president could order for a certain amount of money/foodstuff to be taken to a certain location for the citizens of the country and these so called government members could even choose not to deliver the exact amount mentioned by the president and the president won't even know about it.

I don’t know if you mean it literally but even a president is never alone on making decisions unless he is a dictator. The government compromises of a lot of members with different purposes. As citizens, we ought to vote for those who we think can make a difference alongside the president. While the president chooses who he wants on his cabinet.
How is that possible? Corrupt citizens would elect a corrupt leader so they can continue being corrupt otherwise corruption would be annihilated if the leader means well. A good leader can and should correct his citizens, in my opinion.

It's funny how most of the users are saying that it's the role of the leader of a country to make things right and better for the people they are leading, but I disagree, it's actually a collaborative effort of both the leader and the citizens of a nation to make the nation a better place, a leader is just "one man" and making decisions for an entire country shouldn't rest on his/her shoulders alone, it should be a shared responsibility between its leader and the citizens. Leaders are expected to make informed decisions and take responsibility for their actions as their actions can impact the country while the citizens must participate in the democratic process, educate themselves and demand for transparency and accountability. In some countries most citizens are more corrupt than the leader so I won't put the blame on the leader alone if the economy is bad and if the economy is good I would say it's a collaborative effort from both the leader and the citizens.From where I'm coming from (my country) I strongly believe that a country's well-being is a collaborative effort between both parties. There's a popular adage amongst my people that says "two heads are better than one"

But it is very difficult to get elected, because when it comes to election time, everyone is well, and once a party gets power, that party starts corrupting. After gaining power they change color like chameleons. But all politicians are not the same, some parties are very good who really want to work for the country, but the people have to choose the right party.

To a very Large extent the leaders determine a whole lot how things go in a country, actually they literally make this decisions most times except in rare cases where they throw out pools to get public opinions but they have the trust of the public to make this decisions and so they literally have to and so when things as this happen it can be blamed on them because they influence it greatly in a way except when the public refutes against it then it becomes something they have to consider.

If everyone decides to manage a country, it will not be acceptable, it will not be possible to conduct the country. So to conduct the country someone have to take the responsibility  among the people whom we know as leader. Generally in a democratic countries, multiple leaders are elected and there is a vote to choose a leader who can win through that vote will get the responsibility of the country. Now after taking charge if that leader strives to improve his nation then he will lead his country in the same way. After some leaders get responsibility, there are many who fill their own pockets by doing injustice and corruption and some leaders who work only for their country.

Actually it is both the responsibility of the leaders and the lead to make a country what is is,  but it is more the sole responsibility of the leaders, for instance the leaders in the authority of power in a democratic system of government make policies that the lead or citizens of a country will follow through the help of the security agencies, countries where citizens are not too corrupt is still through the help of Thier leaders,

In a democratic system of government which my country claimed to be practicing, it is the decision of the leaders that determines what becomes of the economy of the country, going with this, the leaders are representative of the led in the upper chamber of they make a bad decision every one in the country will greatly be affected so I think the good and the bad things that happens in a country is as a result of the decision and actions being taken by the leaders.

The led which represents the citizens of the country are majority in number but their decision making is only in election because higher numbers will definitely win in an election but in terms of decision making which will make the country better or worse it is the leaders who should be held responsible for that.

So, essentially, it's the lead.

In virtually every society there is a small class that makes decisions as it affects the whole citizens, and this small class or group is fondly known as the elite they are made up of the ruling class. It is their decisions that determines and influences the behaviors, actions and inactions of the entire society (led). Whether there is peace, war or any related situation the hands of the leaders are deeply in it, the majority of the populace are like a shadow of the ruling class.

Who makes a country what it his?The Leaders or the led?


It's the believers, whether they are leaders or led, duped or know the truth.

Ordinarily it will be assumed that the leaders are the ones that should be held responsible for any of the infractions that is affecting any nation, but in real sense the followers or those been lead are actually to be held responsible, the reason is, they are the ones who elected the leaders, so it is assume that for any decision that the leaders take, is as a result of what their followers must have told them or in the interest of those of them who elected them. However a part of me still feels the blame should be for both sides, because those bad economic policies wouldn't be taken by those leaders if they weren't elected by the citizens.
So if the citizens feel the leaders are not doing what they where elected to do, then they should wait for the next election circle and vote them out.

The leaders are in charge of whatever happens in their country, good or bad. But, the led are encouraged to work closely with the rules of the country to keep it clean from crime, corruption, disaster, etc. However, both the leaders and the led, need each other to run a nation.

A country where the leaders do not know what to do to make things right will always have a problem, leaders are like parents to every citizen because they are the ones who are going to make good decisions and make things easy for society, leaders stand as a pillar for the citizen, making law, and all those kind of things that kind make every citizen believe that the country is doing better, if you look at some countries today they don't have any problem and even if they have a problem it won't be a hard economy but there is a country facing a lot of problem in the world and the leaders don't do anything about it, A country where there is the hard economy and the leaders did not even think of solving the problem just because of their greedy achievement, we should always remember that if anything wrong with the country the leaders should be blamed because they are the one that can solve the problems that is why they choose to be a leader.

Looking at it every one has their role to play both the leader and the led but when a country is performing poorly it is definitely on its leaders, it’s not possible for everyone to lead a country so certain people are elected to represent the people and handle the affairs of the country properly and if mismanaged then the country will struggle and will affect the economic situation of the nation.

If the representative does not make the right decision the country will fail and definitely the leaders will be blamed because they are in charge of making decisions for the country and they were elected by the general public to represent them.

On short run, it's the leaders who make the country good or bad, considering they were put where they are to manage the country. However, if times go by and nothing good is done by the leaders, it's the responsability of the led to choose a new commander. In countries where we see a long lasting precarious economical and social situation for several decades, you can be assured the problem isn't exactly the leaders (at least, they aren't the cause of the problem, but a consequence).

The leaders are a reflex of the people in the mirror. They display the qualities of the people they govern. If the leader is corrupt and the country doesn't unite to remove him and put someone honest in his spot, you can be pretty certain the people of that country is corrupt as well. So, the led are the main problem. Democracy is a failure because of that, as it values quantity over quality.

Though, That only applies to countries and nations in which there is no way for the people of such nation to regulate, control and punish the government for having a bad performance or taking bad decisions, though. You are talking about authoritarian countries like China or Russia, in which there is an absolute leader who makes the rules and the people cannot do anything about it.
In democratic country in which there is actual division of power and there is no authoritarian system like in China, Russia or North Korea, then the people always have the option to vote out those in power who have been proven to be incompetent and an evil against the integrity of the nation.

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.