In a Democracy should the people have the right to kill their leaders?

[B1tUnl0ck3r]

it's a simple democratic question, let's say you find your leader to suck, but deeply, and rather than fire him, like the muppets and low iq and no moral or honor and duty christians do, kill it and why, not to really raise the stakes with his whole family 3 up to whole down?

It would make democratic regime way more dynamic and interesting to watch.

would you support this constitutional modification?

why not?

bonus question : and the leader's families?

you wanted to be free, learn to live it.

and logically, if the "demos" don't have the power to kill their cracy, they don't have the power. it's circular logic.

[1715056059]

1715056059

[1715056059]

1715056059

[1715056059]

1715056059

[SmokerFace]

That can never be a Democracy. Or any such act cannot be denoted as a democratic act. Killing anyone (despite being at fault) is not allowed to be done by any individuals. It is illegal to law into hands. Legal processes can be adopted to assure the enforcement of justice. The leaders are elected by the common citizens, so they must vote for some better option. But killing someone still cannot be allowed at any case.

[figliar0]

That can never be a Democracy. Or any such act cannot be denoted as a democratic act. Killing anyone (despite being at fault) is not allowed to be done by any individuals. It is illegal to law into hands. Legal processes can be adopted to assure the enforcement of justice. The leaders are elected by the common citizens, so they must vote for some better option. But killing someone still cannot be allowed at any case.

First thing that every gov will assure is to be safe from plebs. So it is impossible to adopt legal processes, simply because it doesn't exists. So of course, nobody will have a real right to kill a leader, it is up to you to do it even if you don't have those rights. But count on that - violent elimination of gov will always be iligal.

[Rruchi man]

If i am not mistaken, one of the democratic rights of every citizen both to the regular citizen and their leaders who are individuals as well is the right to life. That right to life can only be taken from an individual when they have unlawfully taken the life of another or have committed a gruesome offence. If this individual is a leader, and democracy is true, the rule of law will prevail and his/her right to life can be withdrawn. In such a situation, the people have the right to kill their leader.

[franky1]

in a democracy. there is no need to kill.

in a tyranical authoritarian system, yea the leader should be shot if he aint willing to leave voluntarily

[libertasbella]

If the leaders have the power to kill the people, then yes.

[Slow death]

there are leaders who are extremely cruel to their people, they steal, kill and manipulate elections to stay in power, this type of leader is very difficult to remove from power peacefully and even when he leaves peacefully he remains ruling in the shadow In that case, the only solution is to have to take measures that should never have been taken, to kill him. I know this is cruel and no one should be that way of thinking and no one should kill another person, but there is no other way to deal with evil leaders who love power and kill their people

[shogun47]

in a democracy. there is no need to kill.

in a tyranical authoritarian system, yea the leader should be shot if he aint willing to leave voluntarily

I guess for the second scenario you mentioned an example would be al-Gaddafi. The people killed him and given that he reigned over Libya for over thirty years suggests that he probably would have never stepped down without the revolution (that in the end didn't change much to date). Hard to tell when and if death is justified, but I guess everyone would agree that it is essentially pointless to let people like Hitler have a fair hearing in front of a court.

[franky1]

in a democracy. there is no need to kill.

in a tyranical authoritarian system, yea the leader should be shot if he aint willing to leave voluntarily

I guess for the second scenario you mentioned an example would be al-Gaddafi. The people killed him and given that he reigned over Libya for over thirty years suggests that he probably would have never stepped down without the revolution (that in the end didn't change much to date). Hard to tell when and if death is justified, but I guess everyone would agree that it is essentially pointless to let people like Hitler have a fair hearing in front of a court.

when a tyranical authoritarian leader is leader. even a court within his realm wont work. because he owns the court system too.

obviously if he steps down voluntarily. then yes arrest him and send him to interpol and detain/charge him under international laws and court system outside of his homeland.

take Saddam Hussein. US invaded iraq in march 2003 and saddam ran away, basically losing his leadership by going into hiding.
months later when being found, he was arrested and imprisoned by the US
then later in 2004 passed back to iraq when the US thought that iraq had a new more stable government..
..but what if iraq didnt have a new government, where by the US didnt help in the initial capture and imprisonment or the later political change, whereby the new government didnt leaned more towards western policy.. he may not have been executed
after all while in US custody it was complete silence. but when in iraq custody he was publishing propaganda

this is why in the UK if you live in one town you are usually taken to a court in another county/town to be judged by individuals without personal bias/local affiliation to the person being prosecuted

[D-law]

This is simply a rhetorical question.
You know the answer to what you asking already.
That ain't no democracy, so what happens to he/her that killed ?
Wrong decisions by leaders,we keep hoping for good ones day after day.

[Sayeds56]

If the leaders have the power to kill the people, then yes.

i think killing of a democratically elected leader is not acceptable in any civilized society no matter how cruel or corrupt he/she is  while there are other constitutional options available to remove him from office. . The history of democracy vindicates that it is not the best system to run the government but having said that what is other better alternative. The world has already witnessed  terrible disasters created by  authoritarian and communist regimes in many parts of the world.

[Gyfts]

A bit of an oxymoron, isn't it, killing a democratic leader.

By virtue of democracy, sort of a built in mechanism, there isn't a need to kill their leader. A democracy has checks and balances to ensure authoritarianism is not allowed, partly by not allowing consolidation of power into one office.

So if you feel the need to kill your leader, chances are you're either mentally ill or not in a democracy.

Probably the former.

[figliar0]

If the leaders have the power to kill the people, then yes.

i think killing of a democratically elected leader is not acceptable in any civilized society no matter how cruel or corrupt he/she is  while there are other constitutional options available to remove him from office. . The history of democracy vindicates that it is not the best system to run the government but having said that what is other better alternative. The world has already witnessed  terrible disasters created by  authoritarian and communist regimes in many parts of the world.

If country has corrupted leader can we still consider that society as civilized? If leader is corrupted are there any other constitutional options to remove him?

So if you feel the need to kill your leader, chances are you're either mentally ill or not in a democracy.

Probably the former.

Not sure how much countries has a democracy at all... 

[Awwal08]

My answer is no if really you choose yes then it is no more a democracy, in my country where democracy is defined as government of the people by the people and for the people and even though they're not doing so that doesn't guarantee us to kill them because we shouldn't put law into our house that's where they are Security Agency, court and other things which will make our report and they will listen to us or actually even in my country Nigeria they are not doing anything just that you don't have any power just have to follow them not that you believe in all what they're doing but you don't have power to fight them.

[Lordhermes]

There are some cases that needs urgency and immediate attention from the public's in a state.In cases of corruption and bribery,the only solution to it is by eliminating the leaders in that country,and appointing new leaders that will promise to serve the people transparently  and in truth.
There are some countries that such situations has happened and the elimination of their bad leaders was the only solution to the problem of the bad governance.

[solusum]

I don't think it is morally or ethically right, neither do I agree that in a perfect democracy, the majority should have the option to kill their leader, it will lead to nothing but turning that country into slowly a self-destructive program. Politicians of the opposition will try to persuade people then how they are so good and the others are so bad and hence they should just be eliminated permanently, in my opinion, it's a shortcut to being a fascist state

[yhiaali3]

Democracy does not mean killing people at all. It is not democratic to kill leaders even if they are wrong. If leaders do not fulfill their duties towards their constituents, they can be removed through democracy, but no one has the right to kill them only after they committed crimes and after a fair trial. The Libyans killed their leader Gaddafi with all Brutality Do you consider this a democracy? Regardless of whether Gaddafi is a good leader or not, it is not democratic or fair to kill him in this way unless he is tried and proven to be a criminal and his sentence is carried out only by the competent authorities and he should not be killed by the people in any way.

[Ebede]

Democracy does not permit any body to waste a soul of any one, democracy explain it self as a government of the people and by the peopleand for the people, you only have a freedom of speech and freedom of movement, i want to know if you have see any thing killing related to democracy, so if your leaders is not doing well, the only place democracy will deliver her people in the country is through protest to pull out their angers their pains and with the demonstration people in other countries will hear their cry

[S A KHAIR]

Democracy means the rights of the people in simple language. In other words, in this state system, besides the government, the people also have the right to elect the government, to express their views.
In a democracy, the people have the right to select the government of their own choice and to reject the government if they do not like the functions of the government.

 But murder !!!

Do they have the right to kill their leader at all?
If history were to come to light, there would be a number of such incidents where the people were forced to kill their leader in the end to stop his arbitrariness.
During the bourgeois revolution in France, the castle of Bastille collapsed and the people killed the French emperor.
But in the present time, it can be said that this system has changed.

[Trading]

Didn't bother to vote.

It's because the people has the right to overthrow the leaders by ballot that is unthinkable to kill them.

There is a long tradition on tyrannicide, not only on western political thinkers, but also on the East. Confucius and his disciple, Mencius (Mèng Kē), wrote about it.

But tyrannicide applies to tyrants, not to democratic elected leaders.

Family members too? No comments.