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 being 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 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.