"Polis" is a Greek word defining villages and towns in a smaller sense and society and countries in a wider sense. A polis needs a form of leadership but the demands and definitions of leadership are inversely proportional to the number of inhabitants. For some a good leader is the person who protects them against hazards and enemies, for others it is the person who is a charismatic being who promises a bright future and there are those who prefer their leader to be a 'wise' man who makes all the right decisions. What all these independent civilians have in common is that they strive to for 'the good life. The leader is the guide who instructs his followers on how to realize the 'good life' goal. This should be done with respect for the people's independence and unless there is a major catastrophe like e.g. a threat of war, independence is sacred and people should never be silenced.
To underpin this I, first of all, will answer the following question: How does the character of the leader(s) relate to the well-being of the polis? I will show that actions can damage both Polis and leaders and will end with the question; 'is Aristotle correct in his understanding of the relation'. It will all end with the (logical) conclusion that averages are a better guarantee for success and the survival of a polis.
How does the character of the leader(s) relate to the well-being of the polis?.
A society that only focuses on materialism and consumption is a society on the brink of destruction. It is the job of the leader to prevent this and explain on a continuous basis that 'the good life' is to be found 'behind' materialism and consumption. The good life is about values, virtues and other ideals worth pursuing. A leader should not only be able to understand how the diversity of all these realities will influence his followers but also how to communicate this, thus allowing for the existence of an independent society.