I actually have a request to analyze this in detail, but for now I’ll just say this. The government are not the whole people; they are part of the people. It would then be unfair to base the nation’s people on the actions of the small % holding office.

For example, in my last post, I made it very clear that America (the personification) has always had good intentions in his interventions (seriously, I must have said it like four times lol). That’s because the majority of his people hold strong beliefs in freedom, democracy, justice, and equality. America represents his people and their culture, not the government in my opinion. However, his foreign policy causes the opposite, and that’s why it’s hard for him to make friends with the other nations, despite what he truly believes in.

The fact that he represents his people, and not the government would make sense in the context of the protests against the Vietnam and Korean wars, and later the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. Those people realized that the interventions were in opposition of American values, while others thought that they were bringing democracy and freedom to these countries.

As a personification, America is also likely obligated to comply with policy, even if he doesn’t agree with it. We saw small hints of this with Germany and his ‘boss’ during WW2.

Overall, the definition of ‘nation’ is pretty explicit: “A large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory.”

I repeat, the governments may represent the people, but they are not the people in whole.