I don?t think so! Once again, this is no complaint, but -like Torsten mentioned- a people is no society if there isn?t any leadership. In my opinion that means: If there isn?t anybody who shows the direction a bench of individia can?t reach any goal or aim, can they? Or without any rule a “common beside-another or with-another” weren?t possible. As we consider us to be clever people ( at least in our countries ) we are supposed to elect our leaders. Right, in that sense you?re right to say that the officials follow often just were the country is going itselfs. But don?t the politicians always promise to change the direction before an election?
To use Alan?s words: It?s a poser - a difficult question-, my mind on this is that they can, at least they can trust or rely on that part of voters who had voted for them. Well, right now, here in Germany there is a quite complicated situation for politicians. As no partie had got a majority at the recent election the two biggest German parties had found a compromise. Please let me add something that sounds rather curious to me: the one big partie had had nearly 35 percent of registered voices and the other big partie nearly 28 percent. So they decided to interpret the willing of the people them to make a conclusion between that two parties. Interesting on this is that not even 50 percent of the registered adults here had voted for any partie -from what reason ever. Now, do you think that our representatives may trust on their countrymen and the opposite?
Jan, I think the abilities/ not capabilities of a people depend on the skills of their leaders. Otherwise we may have an anarchy!
Yes, right, and what kids are learning is influenced by the time spirit and who would have taught them awful things?
Hope not to sound cynical or pessimistic