Would you prefer a freely elected bad leader or a non-elected good leader?

Question

I should add - I was thinking of Singapore when I wrote this. They seem to have done much better than their neighbours and advanced standard of living etc at lightning speed by comparison, largely as a result of a somewhat authoritarian one-party system, albeit in name a democracy.

Answer 1

I guess it depends on the checks and balances of the Government in place. Not all leaders need to be good, hopefully the rest of the Government can make the right choices. How often are elections or terms? Free is great, even with a bad leader, if he will be out of office in 4 years. A non-elected good leader with no checks and balances and an unlimited term could get ugly. Good today, but most likely corrupt tomorrow.

So, I guess a freely elected bad leader with checks and balances and a limited term.

Answer 2

Depends. Would I give up my right to vote and choose a leader, no! So if this means a freely elected bad leader, then so be it.

But if a good non-elected leader were in charge but I still had my voting rights every 4 years, then I'd prefer that. This is very unlikely of course. (ie. Condoleezza Rice would take over if the president, VP, and leaders of each legislature were assassinated. She would serve until the next election, but was never voted into her post.)

Answer 3

I would prefer a freely elected bad leader than non-elected good leader. The first reason is that a bad leader who came to power due to the electoral process has some public accountability, while a leader who came to power by circumventing the democratic framework is not accountable to anyone. Secondly, if a bad leader is elected, he can easily be ousted, where if a good leader turns out to be a fascist later in his term, and is not subject to public opinion, he has free reign to continue as a dictator.

Answer 4

Sometimes non-elected leaders are good. Sometimes elected leaders are bad. Personally I would prefer a good leader however the process of elimination occurred.

I would also like to see a process where the electorate had more say in who the leader was. For example they could vote for a party and a leader in separate elections.

This could elimate the occurrence of the exiting leader nominating the new leader in order to retain some distant subordinate control. (for example nominating your own son as the Presidential candidate)

Answer 5

A freely elected bad leader. If we start accepting non-elected leaders of any type we're going to be in serious trouble. No accountability to the people being 'governed'. Consider the mess in the US now. Rational people realize that man was not chosen by the people either time.

Answer 6

If we assume this "good" leader is considered by everyone to be "good" then I think the answer is obvious...

Everyone would want a non-elected good leader.

Why?

Because the whole point of having elections is to find a leader who the majority of people think is "good".

If there was some magic way of getting a "good" leader without voting then we wouldn't need elections.

Answer 7

Actually both are "freely elected" because the way someone would became a leader doesnt free us from chosing between acceptance and resistance to his leadership. Sometimes acceptance come from weakness. Long story of examples. However a non-elected good leader sounds interresting. But you dont give enough details. Its like with politics. You show me good things about him like advertisment and I dont know how would come to power, is it forced thought he is "good" (turrany feature), why he didnt use election way, what he want from us, etc,etc... I also think you use wrong word because as I remember from others yahoo smart answers leader means someone more than ruler - he is someone respected, favoured by his people. You should rather ask as about rulers and give more details to get more understanded answers.
I am not enough informated about Singapoore but know this that U.S. governs are believed to be a reason of their country power, but isnt it truth that political, history and the way they became give them more than other countries have despite of wisdom their governs could have. Dont be to easy to believe in someones achievements but... maybe they did it.

Answer 8

a non-elected good leader is generally an impossibility.

check out aristotles theory on good governance and you will see that democracy is the worst form of government but safer than a monarchy or an aristocracy because of their risk to quickly become a tyranny and an oligarchy respectively.

additionally, john locke states that the worst political situation is a state of nature (chaos essentially) and that living under a "non-elected leader" will essentially be like living under a state of nature.

Answer 9

No contest, A freely elected bad leader. Our rules say he will be out in 4 years if he doesn't get re elected.

A non elected leader could turn out to be Kim Jong II or Hitler and then you couldn't get rid of him.

VOTE FREEDOM FIRST

Answer 10

That's simple to answer.
In India we have had 10 Prime Ministers who were elected and have brought the country to limits of poverty, corruption and a break down of law and order for the honest. poor and the intellectuals.
Now we have a prime minister chosen for merit, who has not won " even a municipal election". and India is back on the track to improve economy, play ts role on world stage and has become second fastest growing economy in the world, after China.
Yhe choice is simple - merit wins - elections loose.