People inevitably have the tendency of expecting an individual to represent the wills of a particular group where the person belongs to, but things are usually more complex than people's imaginatin, since every person would have to combine his/her own consciousness to the public's interests whether the following consequences are positive or not. So people should keep in minds with the both sides of people's features, sociality and personality, when we judge the relationship between individuals and groups.
On the one hand, undoubtedly, people are living in a perticular group of people where members share the same views toward the same things, communicate with the accepted manners, evaluate things with the same standards, and establish the goal for commonweal, all of which demand someone in this group to stand up and speak for the public especially when they have to confront some confusions. For example, in the democratic society, political leaders are elected by the public, and the government's decisions of policy will, to the most degrees, represent the people's wills in the society, if not all, the majority.
It is necessary for people to expect some individuals to delegate their wills and interests, leading the society onto an upper stage, and contributing to avoid possible chaoses and confusions taking place among the public.
However, on the other hand, everyone is created unique with diverse cognizance, apperception and understanding toward the world, due to the difference in social surroundings, such as culture, tradition and religion etc., that are established along with the long period of educations and edifications which conduce to shape one's personality. So sometimes it is impossible and infeasibile to expect or imagine individual thoughts can wholly reflect the public's interests, since it is hard to compromise and concord with different people for the common affairs. And...