Can the UK be considered a true democracy with an unelected head of state?

Answer 1

You mean Gordon Brown?? How I agree with you!! I didn't vote for him and I don't want him either. I think there should be a General Election to ask the public what the hell they think.

Answer 2

The UK is a parliamentary democracy. Power is supposedly vested in parliament and the head of state plays a constitutional role. Switzerland, comes the closest to being a true direct democracy, if a petitioner can gain a certain number of signatures within a certain time, the issue will be put to a vote of the electorate. An exercise in direct democracy is http://www.myverdict.net, recently launched, where users can ask questions from local to international level, debate the issue, vote and even change their vote should the arguments persuade. MPs in the UK have been asked to give their opinions on some of the issues raised, the first to do so being Douglas Carswell, who supports the idea of direct democracy. If successful in terms of user numbers, the site will at least let all democratic representatives know the views of their constituents and may be persuaded to act accordingly.

Answer 3

The UK is unique in the way it governs with its monarch, which is just a figurehead.

Unlike federal governments like the US, nationalism isn't shoved down the people's throats through the president and its constitution, the people can decide their own ideals which is the nature free speech. Only until then can a country become know as a 'democracy' in that way the UK can be considered a 'true democracy'.

Answer 4

Yes the public can vote for a government . The Monarch is in the main a figurehead with limited powers that could be use full to keep in check corrupt governments. It is sad how left wing republicans continually misrepresent the monarchy yet seem to love Cuba a great beacon of democracy!

Answer 5

Depends on your definition of 'true' and democracy.

The UK is a form of democracy, but in the literal sense a true democracy would be everyone voting on everything etc.
There are obvious reasons why this is not possible/practical.
The UK has evolved a type of 'parliamentary democracy'
where by the daily decisions of government are not taken by the head of state.
In USA and France they have elected presidents who make decisions about things in the daily lives of the populace, our head of sate does not and is mostly a ceremonial position.
Power is with the HofC and to a lesser extent the Hol (the administration)
The monarchy does retain influence, in the current situation the Queen has a wealth of knowledge and experience it would be silly to ignore as we still had some of an empire when she ascended to the throne.
The same cannot be said of Prince Charles (by fact of birth) and it must be a matter of timing as to when the constitutional monarchy is retired.
This is most likely to occur when the UK has formally adopted an EU constitution and the Queen has died.

Answer 6

Democracy English don't know the meaning they all cry in there beer saying how unjust the country is that they don't agree with this or that and were are they on voting day cry in there beer don't complain unless you vote and be warned it is the only right a English person has left the right to vote and that is for now that will be taken away shortly we live in a police state and have dictators right down the line use your vote are one day you will not be able to cry in your beer wake up people Dave

Answer 7

Generally speaking, a country can be considered a true democracy with an unelected head of state, if one can express his/her opinions, without the fear of sued for "defamation" for speaking the truth.

Answer 8

the united kingdom is definitely a democracy. even as the united kingdom monarch is nominally the "ruler" of the united kingdom, they don't have any truly ability. they can't make regulations, administration the authorities, or do some thing of functional importance. the in ordinary words component the united kingdom monarch can do is signal regulations given to her by the united kingdom Parliament. She won't be able to signal some thing they don't supply her, and he or she won't be able to refuse to signal some thing they do supply her. the authentic ability contained in the united kingdom belongs to the parliament, that's democratically elected in open elections. The monarch has no truly ability. an similar is authentic of Japan (the eastern structure even says that the emperor is a ceremonial figure in ordinary words, without truly ability). even as Canadian immigrants might want to swear an oath to the queen, that's again basically ceremonial, and does no longer have any functional signifiance. Canada is administered by its own authorities, elected interior of Canada, that the united kingdom won't be able to administration or impact.

Answer 9

peter i hate to be the bringer of bad news but Mr browns takeover of the Pm's job was one of the worst kept political secrets of the past few decades. we all knew that tony Blair wouldn't keep his promise and serve out the full term as pm and that brown would be stepping into the breech.
the problem was that more people voted for labour than the other parties so they got elected to government once again.
i also ahte to be the bringer of bad news but there isnt really anyone fit in any of the parties to be PM either. Cameron and Campbell would both be walking disasters as well

Answer 10

No, and it never will be as long as we are prepared to tolerate the principle of Buggins turn next.
Furthermore consider the comparison of our system of government and the former Soviet Union.
There were democratic elections in the Soviet Union although there was only one party the Communist party.
A number of candidates stood in every election and the people cast their vote accordingly for the person they considered would best represent them to run a Communist economic system of government..
In Britain we have several parties depending on where we live and we also decide who we consider to be the best party to represent us in a Capitalist economy.
There is no difference in the practise we all ended up with one or other of the economic systems whoever we voted for.
In Russia and the other former former Soviet states today they now have political parties but no choice of the economic system in common with the rest of us.
It should be referred to as political hypocrisy!

Answer 11

I may be wrong, but the U.K. head of state is more a figurehead than an actual shot caller. Can't fault the Brits for staying loyal to tradition.