The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

A monarchy is not an objectively bad government system.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/11/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 415 times Debate No: 103175
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




This is not arguing for a monarchy system within a current government, only that it is not worse in practice, or inherently bad.

A monarchy referring to a system of government with a central ruling individual chosen by being born to a certain family, with appointed less powerful rulers to help govern certain areas. Not referring to a parliament addition of any kind.

You may choose to use the first round to accept and I will lay out the first argument, or to lay out your argument first.


This is an interesting topic, not least of which, I have argued both for and against a monarchy at various times in my life.
Whilst I support the constituional ROLE of a monarch, particularly within the British system, where they have stuff to do but no real power.

But before we get into the details, I'd like you to first define what you mean by "objectively bad" (or objectively good). And not to quibble but I'd like to se what you mean by "government system" espcially since you're rejecting a formal parliament (and Prime Minister).
Debate Round No. 1


By objectively bad I mean inherently unethical.
Government system the system by which a state or community is controlled.

I'm arguing for the idea of an absolute monarchy (I have been having bad memory problems, so I couldn't remember the word or how to look it up at the time), so I'm rejecting a parliament within the monarchy for this argument because it fundamentally changes the government structure that I would be arguing for.


The problem with a monarchy is that it unfairly places a single family in charge of something. There will be people with powers that they may not be suited to handle or even want to handle. The world is too complex to place into the hands of a single person and it is too risky to expose ourselves to a bad monarch.

The monarchy is inherently unfair and by definition not based on individual competence. Worse there is little accountability when they do wrong.
Debate Round No. 2


Though the idea of a monarchy takes away the power of both the monarch and the citizens choice, and they very well might not want the power, I disagree with "There will be people with powers that they may not be suited to handle", in the case of a monarch every moment before receiving the throne would be a moment they learn about it. It's very unlikely they would be under prepared, unlike as with a democracy where someone with no political experience at all can come to power by exploiting mob tendencies of humans.

No current system of power is based on someones competence. It's more of charisma (Democracy) vs chance (Monarchy). In a monarchy though, the minority is less likely to draw a short straw.


I think you raise some good points but the main problem with a monarchy is that people have no choice in the matter. Another way to look at a ruling monarchy is to call it a dictatorship. When you do that then all the flaws of a monarchy comes out: Sadam Hussein torturing and killing his citizens; Erdogan in Turkey is slowly becoming a dictatorship as he consolidates power, killing his citizens and bringing the rule is Islam into a secular country. There are terrible things done by dictators and a king is absolutely no different: it's literally the reason why there are no more reigning monarchs - it's been horrible experience for everyone other than the ruling family and their sycophants.

I disagree that Democracy does not require competence. Since Democracy requires that each leader has to listen to many sides, be able to work with people and understand how the world is run, they have to develop multiple skills in order to be successful and to be VOTED in. This voting mechanism makes every person responsible for how they are ruled and they are allowed to make this decision every few years.

If you say that Monarchy is about chance then that too is a huge problem. It is better to be able to control an outcome than leave it to pure random chance that we don't get a Saddam Hussein or someone! Too much power concentrated in too small a group with no accountability or input from the citizens is a very risky to leave to chance.

I don't think you have supported any advantages of a monarchy (aka benevelant dictatorship) over a democracy yet.
Debate Round No. 3


The difference between a monarch and a dictator, is a monarch comes to power through blood lines, and a dictator works to gain power. A monarch is born learning about his trade, no uncle or high official can not gain that power without killing off the entire family, and probably more. In a dictatorship, any high ranked official has a shot, it's the same problem as a democracy without a vote.

"Since Democracy requires that each leader has to listen to many sides, be able to work with people and understand how the world is run, they have to develop multiple skills in order to be successful and to be VOTED in." Sadly very few people care about skills in a president, charisma sways. Both Americas current president and our last one are clear examples of this pattern.

Donald trump has no previous political experience at all, he owns a large company, appeared on tv and was a democrat not long ago. He won by gaining attention, heck he would constantly contradict himself so that people could pick and choose what he supported. Regardless of how one feels about him, he showed none of those skills before office, because what the people wanted was someone relatable.

In the case of Obama, I was pretty young at that time as his first election was over eight years ago, but the people I talked to about it then voting for him (Though he actually had some experience) was actually that they either didn't want to be perceived as racist, or he seemed nice but also relatively safe. Very few people even looked at his past accomplishments, or political beliefs.

I will also state a more extreme example: Hitler. Hitler was fairly elected by the German public, even though it turned into a dictatorship. He used the anger as many politicians do, that the general public was feeling being in such great debt because of being unfairly blamed for world war one, and pushed the blame on minorities. An example of the mob rule tendencies of democracy.

A monarchy being about chance, can just as well avoid a horrible tyrant as create one, in times of chaos and public unrest a democracy is almost certain to come up with a tyrant, because the leader is reflecting the public.

Lets give an example. 70% of a country is angry at people of Asian decent in general, in a democracy there is a 100% chance of that group taking a hit, but in a monarchy there remains a 30% chance of that group being left alone. Democracy is very much so often unfair to anyone in disagreement with the majority, where as a monarchy leaves room for a minority opinion to have some power.


You are raising some valid points.

However, a monarchy may contain more "training" than a dictator but the end result is still a single person having power without the people's consent. Both systems are more interested in consolidating and maintaining their own power than working for the people. I think to say that a monarchy works for the people has not been bourne my history.

I agree that a democracy isn't perfect. The Donald Trump's that we get now and then are the price we pay for people not voting. However, there is a self correction. People are talking politics and policy more than ever before and when he fails we will have a more educated voter base and hopefully not do Trump again. With a monarchy we're kinda stuck.

I believe that the self-correcting nature of a Democracy far outweighs any small advantages from a monarchy.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.