Is Monarchy better than republic, constitutional or otherwise.
Debate Rounds (3)
Firstly they make the claim that a Monarchy is a more stable form of government, this assertion lacks any evidence or reason.
A Monarchical form of government is subject to the Monarch's health, sanity, education, motivation, initiative etc and therefore can be far less stable than a democratic system. Assuming a Monarch has all of these there is the issue of succession, how would the heir to the throne be decided? If the throne lacked an heir who would take over? This highlights another problem with the argument that a Monarchy is more stable, which is that even if the current Monarch is fine there is no guarantee that the next one will be so.
While in a Republican system there are a number of ways of choosing a potential successor in the case of the head of state dying, examples being, new elections , the party with a parliamentary majority electing a new Prime Minister/President etc. etc. Because the successor is subject to scrutiny by the public, or a body of people elected by the public, they are unlikely to have any serious health/motivational issues.
My opponent's second point is that corruption is less likely as the Monarch has been brought up with a certain set of values.
This argument is also full of holes as even if there is a Monarchy there needs to be certain institutions to maintain public order and these institutions are still susceptible to corruption. The argument that because a Monarch has been brought up with a set of values and is therefore incorruptible is naive at best because even if a monarch has certain values this does not necessarily mean that they will follow them.
A system in which government is transparent, owes its power to the people and is subject to the law would be far superior because in a transparent scrutinized system corruption is likely to be minimal and if present rooted out, the party which is guilty of corruption would become subject to the judiciary and an election to re-fill the post of the guilty would follow suit.
My opponents third point is that because of minimal bureaucracy decisions can be made much faster.
Firstly I would point out that if a Head of State was elected every five years in a free and fair election there is no reason why they could not make decisions as fast as monarch could, as long as those decisions are made according to previously defined law and not in conflict with the nations constitution. Furthermore, it is far more beneficial that serious problems are dealt with after a debate/review of the facts present rather than making a snap decision based on instinct, which is far more likely to happen when the people making that decisions are not accountable to the people for doing so.
To conclude, none of the points made were convincing in arguing the point that a Monarchy would be preferential to a Republic. Republics which are highly scrutinized and accountable are preferential to a Monarchy in nearly every way.
The points made about the 'Sanity' and 'Health' of the Monarch can be resolved, all monarchs have been subject to their lords of the manors of which are controlled by them, if they are worried about the health of the king then a Reagent is decided by closest relation to make decisions on behalf of the queen. E.G. The Prince Reagent George the IV for his father King Geore the III, king of the United Kindom of Great Britain and Ireland and colonies subject to the second British Empire.
The ideals of the Windsor Family have been the same ever since the Queen Victoria of the UK, the ideals of the family were the same ever since it's Dynasty started, the same with the Tsardom of Russia, even though the horrible dictoarorship and enforcement of Russiafication the ideals had stayed the same. But both republic and Monarchies have done horrible acts, such as the murder of millions of Native American by the United States of America in the war of 1812.
The statement that a republic is better in almost every way is a bold statement. They both have advantages as disadvantages.
Quicker decisions, almost instant.
Secure Ideals and constant culture
You can't please everyone.
Secure long term plans to the nation such as the
economic industrialisation of Russia during the
Tsardom of Nicholas III.
Promotes Extremist wings such as communism or fascism
Short terms lead to lost projects an half
Fairer reprentation but the basis of society keeps
Furthermore my opponent mentions the House Of Windsor, George III in particular, who while in power (before his regency) was in charge of handling the American Civil War as Head of The Armed Forces, this is a perfect example of how disastrous having a 'divine' monarch can end disastrously for a nation. He was unwilling to make peace with the Americans despite the guidance of his experienced advisers and ended up overextending himself in the war and losing much more territory than was needed. Monarchs often proved to be too stubborn to make the decisions which their advisers recommended a good example being Elizabeth I of England who selfishly chose not to marry despite the diplomatic benefits of doing so or the previously mentioned George III.
My opponent then makes a list of advantages of Monarchical government which I will attempt to address:
He states that Monarchies make quick decisions, but fails to recognize that the heads of state of Republics can just as easily make those quick decisions. I would add to this that it actually depends much more on the monarch and the statement that decision making was fast is completely baseless as it depends on the individual monarch, again Elizabeth I was infamous for her inability to make decisions and procrastinating for weeks on end about certain issues.
He then goes on to state that secure ideals and a constant culture are the result of monarchies but fails to realize that the most constant culture in the world at the moment would be that in North Korea, a republic, albeit a quasi-monarchical republic but a republic nevertheless. Secure ideals are a side effect of culture and therefore his point is weak at best.
My favorite point raised is that secure long term plans are more successful under monarchs, and he gives Nicholas III of Russia as an example. What he fails to mention is that the series of five year plans under Stalin of the USSR industrialized Russia much faster than under Nicholas. This is besides the point, if a system in a republic is working then the people instituting them get re-elected or get kept on by the respective party, if a system is failing then the party responsible will be unelected and a new policy will be put in place or as was the case of the USSR people will be stripped of their posts and the policy will be re-thought through. A monarch does not change policies, it does not happen. If a policy is failing the monarch is accountable to no one and this is why the system is defective.
My Opponent then states problems with Republics:
He states that republics promote extreme political ideologies such as Communism but fails to recognize the extremist monarchies currently in power such as those in Saudi Arabia, Swaziland etc
I have already addressed the issue with my opponents problem with 'unfinished plans'.
His last point will have to be clarified as I'm unsure what he actually means.
My opponent does not address my point that Heads of State in republics can make just as quick decisions as Monarchs, but also seems to submit to my point on corruption. He makes an attempt to rebuke my point on stability but fails to concede that mentally unstable leaders simply do not happen in republics, but can happen in monarchies.
LukeJamesRurans forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.