Nation personifications don't reflect their government; rather, they reflect their people. The masses, so to say.
Since personifications were formed through the unification of people and the creation of communities with shared cultures, every aspect of their personality is representative of something from their people. It may be their physical appearance, their sense of fashion. It may be the way they handle unexpected situations. It may also be something less tangible, such as ideals and religious beliefs.
All the same, due to this, the personifications will not necessarily be amenable to the actions that their government takes. Some governments are more representative of their people's will than others; as such, some personifications are in better standing with their government than others. The more in tune a government is with the general public, the more similar they are with their personification, and the less disagreements there are between the two.
This is not to say that the personifications only take after most of their population, of course. Personifications are also highly affected by their upbringing, whether reared by humans, by one of their kind, or both. Upbringing may result in a personification holding beliefs contrary to their people's, or holding beliefs that do not belong to the majority. But there will always be a connection between a personfication and their people's culture, whether or not anyone realises the origins of certain characteristics.
In cases where a nation is divided - split into two different sides regarding a single matter, such as civil wars, referendums, elections, or anything else - their personication is always, always, in great pain. A divided nation is a vulnerable one, and a vulnerable nation results in an unhealthy personification.
All of these is why nation personifications oftentimes aren't treated as well as might be expected. One common characteristic among them is their uncompromising nature. There is no else who can exert the will of their people upon their government more than them, and it is a severe dereliction of their duty as the human personifications of everything that constitutes their nations to neglect doing so. Such characteristic may be tamed, but not by the personifications themselves. It goes against their very nature to do so - to restrain themselves from fulfilling, or at least attempting to fulfill, their people's desires. But their governments?
Their governments can and have done so.
When a government has had enough of their personification's unruliness and incompliance with orders, they might look for a way to make said personification do so, rather than find common ground between them and compromise. The government would do everything in their power to make the personification bend their knee, whether by force or by persuasion. A personification may be broken by such an ordeal, especially if the former method is applied. They will lose touch with their people, unconsciously detaching themselves from their connection, though never fully breaking the link.
Sometimes, instead of succumbing to their government's control, a personification may grow even more tenacious in their resolutions. And when a government has tried and failed to subdue said personification, they may eventually resort to the highest order of punishment possible.
Exile.
The very essence of nation personifications entails a physical, mental, and emotional connection to the nation they personify. Their territory's destruction is the destruction of their soul, the agony of their people is their own, and every major loss resonates deep within their very being. Losing that physical connection with their territory will absolutely destroy a personification. It will not kill them - not for centuries on end, at least - but it is one of the greatest sufferings that a personification may endure, right alongside mass slaughter of their people. So in the end, when a personification pushes their government too far, they often end up capitulating instead.
There are other situations, of course, in which a personification may manage to 'win' against their government. A personification will not be so recalcitrant if there is no specific reason for them to be so, and as such, having the backing of their people is essential for a personification.
Yes, a personification represents the people's beliefs, the people's values, the people's desires and needs. Even then, the people of a nation do not always speak up against their government. They do not always express their wishes. But when the personification is in accordance with their people, when they both strive towards the same goal, they are may be able to bring about whichever change they wish for.
An example would be being on the verge of an important decision in the government, wherein the people want something that the government seems reluctant to give. In that scenario, the personification will be on their people's side (unless, of course, they're already under their government's control), and it would be cause for tension between the personification and their government if the difference in their wants is too big to be negotiated. If the people's voices grow louder and more demanding, pressuring their government, and the government ends up surrendering to what the people want, then it may be said that the personification has won, for their people's victory is theirs too. Revolutions wherein the people are rebelling against the government may be another example of this.
This is why sometimes, a government may attempt to subdue a personification before they've even done anything untoward, knowing that the personification would be sympathetic to the masses. The government will believe that because the personification is not in favour of their decisions, they may betray the government and spill important information to the people, in order to further their cause.
Nation personifications are not always safe with their government. It always depends on how adept a personification is in dealing with their government. Different personifications deal with their respective governments differently - it is one of the major things that set them apart. Barring cultural, topographic, and other differences between nations, the personifications are all different in how they handle their governments. A government may be going directly against their people's wishes, but their personification is in good standing with them. A government may be in direct accord with their people, but they are in conflict with their personification.
Older personifications are wiser about such matters. Along the centuries, they've accumulated experience in dealing with various governments. They will know how to appear unaffected, even if their government is in shambles, without giving any hint as to what thoughts and emotions lie underneath their facades. It's a lesson learned the hard way, after experiencing the pain of exile. They will also know how to best deal with civil unrest, after having suffered through the pain of perhaps a civil war or two, and being intimately familiar with the pain of feeling split in half for months or years on end.
To simplify:
1.) While personifications may develop personal values and desires through interaction with fellow personifications, the foundation of their being always lies within the nation they personify, and that they change alongside the ever-shifting nature of humans.
2.) Nation personifications are not synonymous with their government or their government's actions. Conflict may arise between personifications and their governments, with resolutions that vary depending on the situation.
