In a dispute between Nations, do individuals need to be 'represented'?

"Representation" is not an easy term to define. In a Democracy, it depends on the actual 'representation' of the People, by the elected Representatives, and by the Top of government. Generally, the Constitutionally 'constituted' Top, 'represents' all the people at the Bottom; but, it can represent the People in Domestic matters, or, on International matters. The two situations are different and call for a different approach. Nevertheless, 'representation' always remains an issue when any political entity purports to act. To be sure, that issue depends on the form of government that is acting. Autocratic forms, by definition, need not represent 'the people' and certainly, not 'all the People'. Of course, Autocracies always claim to represent the Nation as a whole, which is understandable, because the Nation is a political entity and, as such, is a source of power on the International scene. A Democracy also represents the Nation as a whole in an International situation, but the obligation to 'represent' can still be an issue. For example; the People may not want War, or may not want the effects of a large mobilization, because of its economic effects. Nevertheless, in a Democracy, 'Representation' of the Bottom by the 'Representatives of the Bottom', is always a critical issue. Do these Representatives act on behalf "of the People"; or, "for the People"; or, on behalf of 'democratic issues'; or, have issues of 'political power' become inextricably intertwined with issues of 'personal power', 'personal importance', or 'purely individual preferences'? If the issues are 'personal', as previously described, they cannot be 'representative' of the People. Don't get me wrong, there will be times when action is immediately required. But, for now, I speak of the theory of 'representation' in a Democratic form of government. Issues of 'political power' and issues of 'personal power', and 'personal importance', need to be distinguished.