Wouldn't an elected head of state , be more democratic?

Question

Wouldn't an elected head of state , be more democratic?

Answer 1

Yes, elections tend to be democratic, as Democracy is the instigator for the elections and by extension the power bestowed upon elected officials.

However, as other answerers have stated, democracy is often times NOT the best way to go about things. An uneducated populace can elect officials that may not be in their best interest.

Answer 2

Yes it would

But there's nothing we can do about it right now.

Answer 3

Depends where you're talking about, in constitutional monarchies, no. In absolute monarchies, yes.

In the UK for instance, all power is held by the elected Government, none is held by the head of State, she is just a figurehead. Many democracies have unelected heads of State. Many Presidents around the world are unelected by the general Population, often they are appointed by Parliament e.g Ireland and Israel have Presidents voted in by Parliament.

In absolute Monarchies, the Monarch is the head of state and head of the Government (if not The Government) and this is totally undemocratic but change should usually only be enforced by the people.

Answer 4

Have you NOT been paying attention to what George Bush has been doing?  He was elected and is NOW acting like a friggin' dictator!  Be careful what you wish for.

Answer 5

Possibly but then Britain does not claim to be a democracy. Perhaps electing the Prime Minister might be more democratic, as he is currently imposed on Britain by the ruling party? Myself I consider the Queen to be a better head of state than some corrupt old politician. I would also welcome Charles, as I believe he would stand up for our rights better than some corrupt  old politician, too.

Answer 6

Need not be. Take China for example. they have general elections but they are communist!