Who was the youngest ever elected head of state/head of government of any democratic country? Wikipedia has a list of youngest government leaders since 1945 (bottom of page), and it looks like only #21, Roosevelt Skerrit, Prime Minister of Dominica at 31, qualifies as having been democratically elected. Has there ever been anyone younger, elected by either popular vote or by parliament (and was NOT the sole candidate)?
Yeah, but I still say England’s greatest Prime Minister is Pitt the Elder. 
Oh come on. Everyone knows it’s Lord Palmerston.
I’m sorry. I’m very sorry. The devil made me do it.
Padme Amidala was first elected to office when she was 14.
I haven’t been able to find a president or prime minister that was younger. I think we have a winner.
WPtY must have been quite a skilled politician to have garnered enough support to become PM at 24, although I daresay part of his appeal must have been the fact that he was the son of WPtE. Nonetheless, there doesn’t seem to be any contender in the world even close to that age in the following 200+ years. This is probably a GD question (yea - hijacking my own thread!), but I wonder if there would be even the remotest chance of anyone under the age of 30 being elected in any modern democracy with a good sized population, say 5 million or over? I could understand something like that happening in a low population country where the pickings might be slim. But any large nation, probably not.
Pitt the Younger also died at age 46 and deeply in debt. He supposedly drank a lot.
Lord North was just 37 when he became PM.
Benedict IX (born Theophylactus) was democratically elected pope in 1032, supposedly at the age of 11 (though other sources say 18, 19, or 20), and thus became head of state of the nominally independent papal states. At the time of the election, suffrage was extended to all Roman noblemen.
How about George 1 of Greece. Although a King, he was elected to the position.
There are thousands every day in families all over the world - his or her highness the first born child.
That’s not a head of state.
Pitt the Younger: I intend to put up my own brother as a candidate against you!
Blackadder: Oh, and which Pitt would this be? Pitt the Toddler? Pitt the Embryo? Pitt the Glint in the Milkman’s Eye?
Pitt the Younger: Pah! Gentlemen, as I said to Chancellor Metternich at the Congress of Strasbourg; “Poooo to you with knobs on!” We shall meet sirs, on the hustings!
Well neither is Primeminister of the UK, PM is merely Head of Government. HM The Queen, God bless Her and all who sail in Her, is the Head of State of the UK and is AFAIK not elected.
Thanks for the image.
Hold on there: even elaving aside Head of State/ Head of government dispute, there’s a world of difference between the british Parliament in 1760 and the British parliament today. I don’t know if the PM then could be called the Head of Anything. It was an important job, but England then was only half a democracy, or less.
I wouldn’t say that qualifies as a democratic country (where the people and/or their freely elected representatives can freely elect their leaders). Cardinals are appointed and noblemen are born into position.
No term limits, so again it doesn’t really qualify as democratic. You have to be able to vote them out as well as vote them in.
Who said anything about cardinals? I don’t think they had suffrage in 1032, unless they also happened to be Roman nobleman.
Anyway, if you require universal suffrage, then almost any head of state elected before the early 20th century is out, since the franchise was not extended to women (and often also to members of certain races, slaves, non–land owners, etc.).