jump to last post 1-4 of 4 discussions (4 posts)

What comes first: a leader or a country.

  1. jaymaqx profile image60
    jaymaqxposted 7 years ago

    What comes first: a leader or a country.

    As in, what came first the chicken or the egg? 

    The question is in terms of creation/birth.

  2. Ludivine profile image59
    Ludivineposted 7 years ago

    A country can't function without a leader, a leader is useless without a country. They should complete each other. As thinking it as creation/birth, I guess the country would come first, It would then chose its leader.

  3. Jarn profile image83
    Jarnposted 7 years ago

    A country is capable of self-determining with a sufficiently well-developed bureacracy, and another leader can be appointed once statutes are in place to allow for succession. The Catholic Church goes without a leader whenever the Pope dies. It's quite normal. However the leader is nothing without his/her country. His/her entire purpose is to act for the greatest benefit of the country's citizens. He is the chief civil servant, nothing more.

  4. Wayne Brown profile image84
    Wayne Brownposted 7 years ago

    Leaders arise to situations and circumstance.  Given that premise, masses of people may find themselves collectively together in a given space and time.  They may possess geography and like desires but do not have the will or the vision to organize themselves into a cohesive society with an infrastructure and a rule of law.  Leaders rise to this challenge and address these issues.  They make the hard decisions and they work both sides of the street to gain the compromises that allow the effort to continue to move forward.  Ultimately, they gain respect for in all they do, they do it for the right reasons at the right time and pray to God for the right outcome.  None of that happens without an emerging leadership. So, I think we can say that the need and circumstance brings forth the leader and from that emerges the country.  WB

 
working