I think that there is more than just an influence. While some countries have a messianic relationship with their leaders, they are, in simple terms, as flawed as any men. In that sense, they're not exempted from influence, ego and convictions.
Actually, they are the results of such elements - don't democracies have the leaders they deserve? In such political context, leaders should, by definition, represent and embody the people who chose him/her to be their country's representative.
Hence, one may wonder what does the "people" (as an entity) represent ?
- Do nations consist of the intemporal addition of cultures and histories related to a specific territory ?
- Does the "people" bear in its heart, the culture and the history of the nation?
In that case, it is only natural that the leader, represents all of that and must act accordingly.
What defines a nation is a debatable question but I think that you're right. As Realists suggest, countries are governed by men influenced by their primary instinct (Animus Dominandi).
Like
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." (Hall, 1906, 199)
I think that there is more than just an influence. While some countries have a messianic relationship with their leaders, they are, in simple terms, as flawed as any men. In that sense, they're not exempted from influence, ego and convictions.
Actually, they are the results of such elements - don't democracies have the leaders they deserve? In such political context, leaders should, by definition, represent and embody the people who chose him/her to be their country's representative.
Hence, one may wonder what does the "people" (as an entity) represent ?
- Do nations consist of the intemporal addition of cultures and histories related to a specific territory ?
- Does the "people" bear in its heart, the culture and the history of the nation?
In that case, it is only natural that the leader, represents all of that and must act accordingly.