| The idea that a state cannot be on its own without | | | | could also be understood as a relationship between |
| some set of people at the helm of its affairs cannot | | | | those that lead and those that follow them. It could |
| be over emphasized. It follows that for any soceity | | | | be a collective or refer to a single individual and it |
| to be well cordinated, there must be a leader. But | | | | goes as far as the ability of leaders to persuade |
| the question to ask is that: why do the citizens have | | | | followers through the cultivation of a sense of |
| the duty to obey the laws of the state through its | | | | common purpose which will benefit all members. |
| leadership? This is the problem of political obligation. | | | | The question to consider on the above assertion is |
| The answer to this question is simple and obvious. | | | | that: is it not possible for a relationship to be built in a |
| "The state has sovereign authority". It follows | | | | society or state and common goal achieved without |
| logically that at the helm of affairs of every state, | | | | anyone necessarily being the leader? We can also |
| there are some set of people to give orders while | | | | view leadersip as the ability to obtain a no-coerced, |
| others are obliged by the law to follow. It is | | | | voluntary compliance which enables followers to |
| therefore evident that the concept of leadership is | | | | attain the goals which they share with their leaders. |
| peculiar to Hobbes' social contract where people | | | | However, we can make some important observation |
| surrender their rights to be ruled by the leviathan. | | | | namely, that political leadership is a relational concept |
| However, the word "leadership" implies giving a | | | | under lied by power, trust and defined goals and |
| direction to, or heading a social group or process. It | | | | places a lot of premium on the role of individual. |