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

[HajiBagi]

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

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.

[Accardo]

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.

[Spaceman1000$]

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.

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.

[BADecker]

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.

[letteredhub]

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.

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.

[BADecker]

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.

So, essentially, it's the lead.

[GiftedMAN]

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

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.

[Nonstop_H]

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.

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,

[Rabata]

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.

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.

[Zigabel]

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.

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.

[TatsuyaJemi]

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.

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.

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.

[Cityhunter34]

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.

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"

[Reatim]

a leader is just "one man" and making decisions for an entire country shouldn't rest on his/her shoulders alone,

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.

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.

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.

[Cityhunter34]

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.

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 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?

 

a leader is just "one man" and making decisions for an entire country shouldn't rest on his/her shoulders alone,

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.

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.

[GrifffonEngine]

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