This entirely depends on the type of democracy the country chooses to pursue. In a democracy, if the country follows:
Direct Democracy: There will be no leadership, as each individual member gets a voting right. Since there is no leadership, there will be no power.
Indirect Democracy:
- Athens' version: Leadership was selected by the people, and they were only given the power to approve the laws. Creation and debate was up to the citizens.
- Romans' version: A republic was set up, in which the citizens elect representatives to pass laws based on the voters. Leaders did have some power, in the form of military, economic, and most national level security.
- Great Britain's version: A two house was set up as a separate but "equal" to the monarchy. In this case, the house became more powerful than the monarchy in most of her history. The house was split into two (hence two houses), one made up of lords (House of Lords), while the other was made up of the common people (House of Commons). The monarchy in most cases was suppressed, and sometimes even only became a figure-head. In this case, the leader's power ranged from next to nothing, to being a strong-arm leadership.
- Monitory Democracy: A monitory democracy takes away most of the power of the federal government, and simply leaves it to "monitor" the public health and good, hence it's name. In this case, the Democracy would feature a strong security force but lenient power in using it.
etc.
In essence, a democracy can have a range in amount of power each leader can have. It entirely depends on what the country needs, as well as it's culture and historical elements. However, the rule of thumb of the amount of power that a leader can have in a democracy is to allow space for him/her to be able to create legislations for the country's benefits, as well as limitations to ensure that the democracy continues to strive (essentially keeping it from falling into a fascist state).
~
