Is it the leader of a society that holds a nation back or takes itforward or is it in the hands of a society ?

Answer 1

If it is in democratic country, it is the society. If it is not democratic , it is the leader.

Answer 2

It is in the hands of those that are involved. More often than not, the only people involved are those who are dubbed the leaders and so they are the ones that direct our society. On occasion there comes along a leader, such as JFK or Reagan, which have enough leadership ability to mobilize and entire society towards a greater good. So even though society is the ultimate judge of movement it is the leaders that originally make the navigation decisions.

Answer 3

I've said it numerous times: You get the leadership you deserve.

And so, if society is at severe and intractable odds with the leadership of society, it is the SOCIETY's responsibility to exert its will and interest upon the leadership (by direct contact with representatives, by vote, by peaceful dissent and if all else fails, by rebellion against the leadership).

Some may look at these methodologies as ineffective, or extreme (at the other end of the spectrum). But society's well-being is society's responsibility (executed by the representative leaders). If that well-being is compromised, and that compromise is due to negligence or incompetence on the part of leadership, society must step in and demand remediation (censure, impeachment, rebellion).

I say rebellion, because at some point, entrenched leadership may just not get it (or may just not relinquish power) and at such time, it is within society's right to restore the balance of power and the true order of society that had been compromised by poor/indulgent leadership.

Taken in calculated and deliberate steps, dissent by society usually leads to remediation of whatever flaw leadership had failed to address up to that point (we are hoping/praying this will happen with immigration). Beyond the vote, society is, if it wishes to live freely and peacefully, compelled to act on its own behalf should it not see things the way leadership does. This has become more simple with the advent of the internet, but also more diluted (with bots that can send phony emails/faxes to Congress on behalf of citizens who don't exist). Simply put, you can write/call/email/fax your representative and other leaders and voice your opinion; if society's voice is then ignored (majority opinion being dismissed), society then has the right to demand further action (and if resisted, to take on this action personally in various forms until such results that satisfy society's demands are achieved). A good example of this is the period between 1789 and 1804 in France, where the people had enough and took matters in their own hands (albeit in a roundabout, misguided, murderous and counterproductive way). Our society should be responsible enough to police its own leaders, otherwise, we get what we deserve.

Answer 4

In most cases it would be both. But society has to have the nerve to tell the leader when the decisions he is making for the country is wrong.

Answer 5

both... and it depends on the leader... I really don't think Hitler and Stalin's actions were what the society wanted... but at times it is what the society wants...

Answer 6

i like you cutey ;)