The leaders have a responsibility.
This is not a moral statement but, rather, an acknowledgment that the social power of the term “leader” is based upon the privilege afforded by the term “responsibility” at the expense of the term “irresponsibility”.
What is the nature of this responsibility, what more could be said of it beyond the above?
At its heart, it is self referential. It is a responsiveness to the needs, not of the group, but of the equation (the habitus equation, the power structures of symbolic capital that encompass the term leadership itself).
Superficially, a form of apparently transcendent materialism, a deification of the CEO or ayatollah: because society projects all responsibility onto him, he is ultimately accountable for the success or failure of the whole group. But that’s an imaginary accountability, and is therefore only useful up to a point (up to it being itself symbolic capital). If a leader believes it, he becomes irresponsible in the real (amoral) sense of failure to deliver functionality.
It is almost transcendent though, in that leadership hovers above the ground of habitus, like a spectre.
Responsibility is not moral accountability. For the leader, responsibility is a purely mathematical challenge: to balance the equation of habitus over time. Fully expressed transcendent materialism may be a tool to influence people toward that balancing – but often it leads to failure because it introduces ego into the picture, where there should only be desire.
What is the nature of this responsibility? To ensure society functions.
Breakage of outmoded habiti, regeneration of new habiti – all necessary as leadership is passed along, to ensure the overarching equation is maintained.