Technically, every democratic state can have its own celebrity leader. As long as he does what the people want and follow the advice of the executive, anyone can be a president.

And because the mass is stupid, that's a bad idea.
Direct and personalized democracy open up chances for demagogues and populists.

Yes, i agree. Democracy is a tradeoff between stupidity and happiness.

A celebrity leader an sich isn't a problem, obviously. Our king is a celebrity, and presumeably a leader as well. (note: king doesn't have any actual power in Belgium. When our former king refused to sign an abortion law, parliament just withdrew him from his function as head of state for a day and signed the law itself. Then we re-instated the king. That's what they call a "Belgian compromis" )

But in a state where an elected leader DOES have power, like in the US, or the French president, you can run in all sorts of troubles.

On the other hand, i don't expect Swarchzie to do much wrong(er). US do have all them checks and balances, but i still find that a president/governor shouldn't have too much direct power. Blabla

Thats the whole point of the executive.

What's an executive anyways? Knowing you its some kinda Roman thing Derf.

The executive is the governor (or mayor, or president, depends on what level you're looking at). That's the head dude. There is also the legislative which 'makes the laws' (congress, and state/city equivalents), and the Judicial which enforces the laws (Supreme court, other courts). They're supposed to balance each other out.

For instance, the president can't make laws, only the legislative can (in theory). The legislative can't really put it into law without the president (unless they have 2/3 vote I believe). And the judicial can look at it, declare it unconstitutional and get rid of it. etc etc. It gets alot more complex in practice.