Monarchies are superior than Republics
Debate Rounds (5)
I'll argue that a monarchical form of government is much better than a republican form of government on the following issues:
- Political stability
- Political corruption
Any questions about this topics please write it con comments.
The first round is for acceptance
Second for main arguments
Third for rebuttals and, if possible, new arguments.
Fourth again for rebuttals and new arguments.
Fifth for rebuttals and conclusion.
I would like to thank Con for accepting debate with me and I agree with his request. No random blogs shall be used as sources.
Let the debate begin!
1- Political stability
Monarchies are more stable than Republics for two reasons: the monarch doesn't belong to a party and he has a lifelong and hereditary position.
The first reason is easier to understand. A neutral Head of State avoids conflicts between the Executive and the Legislative or (in Parliamentarian Republics) between the prime-minister and the President. In Republics, the Presided must represent the beliefs of the party. In Monarchies, the Monarch must represent the beliefs of the people. For example, in the United States the President is Democrat, but the Congress is Republican and they had a lot of disagreements, like the Obamcare and the more serious Government Shutdown. It would be impossible for a situation like that to happen in Constitutional Monarchies like the UK, Norway or Belgium.
Another advantage for a neutral Monarch is the formation of the government. If no parties on the Parliament gets a majority to form a government, the Monarch can suggest someone that he, in his neutral role of Head of State, thinks is the better for the position. In 2011, Belgium passed 18 months without a government when the King intervened and appointed a new PM. In a Republic, the president would try to solve the problem only if it would benefit it's party.
The second one is a little tricky. A Monarch will support long-term policies, since he has a long life position. He won't try do destroy a good legacy left by the antecedent government, but he'll try to continue the policy, since he's only interest is the welfare of his subjects. It's common in most Republics to see a new government from a different party destroying the legacy of the old government only because it was from another party.
2- Political Corruption
Monarchies are less corrupt than Republics. First because the Monarch is not elected he doesn't have to favour an economic group or a party when he is in power. Second, historically Monarchs were in most cases a moral example. Therefore, the people below him would follow the example and political corruption would be harder to occur, since if they were corrupt they wouldn't have the monarch support to form a government. And if you look at the Corruption Perception Index, 7 of the 10 less corrupt countries are Constitutional Monarchies, while the first two positions are filled by Denmark and New Zeeland, two Constitutional Monarchies.
Monarchies are better economically for the country, for three reasons: they are cheaper than Republics, they value continuity and they have a status.
Yes, Monarchies are cheaper than Republics. In Republics there is not only the costs for the President and he's staff but also for ex-Presidents and their staff. The Republic costs for Portugal costs almost the double that the monarchy cost for Spain. The French Republic is the most expensive of Europe and it costs more than any of it's Monarchies. And there are monarchies that don't cost anything to the tax payers, like Liechtenstein.
The second reason I already explained before. Monarchs don't aim for the next elections, they aim for the next generations. They won't support populist policies, but policies that will bring prosperity to their countries in long term.
Thirdly, they have a status. Yes, this is a very big deal. The status of the monarchy generates millions on products related to it, in tourism and it helps expanding the countries image through the world. Think about the money generated by tourism in Royal Weddings, coronations, jubilees, etc. No Republic can do that..
The international status of the monarchy is also helpful. Many Arab countries won't make business with other countries unless they send (A) the President of the United States or (B) a Monarch. If a country needs an oil contract in the Middle East, it is good to have a Monarchy.
A Monarchy is a more legitimate than a Republic. There is no philosophical argument or whatsoever that justifies why someone who has 51% of the votes should rule a country of millions of people. In Republics, you don't elect the best candidate, you elect the one with most campaign donations, the one who used better it's propaganda. This president can be a demagogue and even get reelected, like it happens in most Latin American countries.
On the other hand, a Monarch is raised since he a was a little kid. He has the knowledge and the capacity to the charge he needs to perform. Second, by not belonging to a party, they are not linked to any political position. Therefore, he can represent equally a socialist and a conservative.
Monarchies are the opposite of political stability, In a Republic sure the leader is subject to their party, HOWEVER there is more than one political leader. Thus representation is shared and thus equal. Leaders are not bought and we can see that in american elections, Obama was overspent by several hundred thousand dollars and still won. In a monarchy the leader is corrupt and subject only to their opinion. NEVER BEFORE IN HISTORY HAS A MONARCHY WORKED AND BENEFITED ITS PEOPLE! ALL MONARCHIES AS OF PRESENT ARE EITHER STRUGGLING TO SURVIVE OR GONE. Stability in a monarchy is achieved simply by killing any opposition, hording resources, and forcing people below you into poverty.
YOUR WHOLE CONTENTION ASSUMES ALL MONARCHIES ARE NEUTRAL, that's not how monarchies work. They are simply composed of a leader that looks out for his own good only trying to empower himself. They do not care what they have to do to achieve it. This is proved with Hobbes' law of nature, a monarchy is a clear example when law of man is ignored and we are placed into a state of nature, or chaos, NO MAN CAN BELIEVE HE IS ABOVE THE LAW no matter how talented or skilled. Thus your Contention falls apart.
2) Political corruption
This is absurd argument, Warlords run the same government of fear Monarchies use and are the definition of corrupt, they accept funds to sway opinion, CORRUPTION IS NOT TO FAVOR A PARTY ALONE, IT REQUIRES A BRIBE OF SOME SORT. So again, a republic where Parliament exist show equal representation of the people, thus equality is spread unlike in a monarchy.
This argument is so far out there I'm almost sad your arguing this, The only argument I needs bring against this is GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE OF THIS WORKING, All the examples in the past have LEAD TO REBELLION, REVOLUTION, DEATH, AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A REPUBLIC. Current examples of working republics; USA, UK, Germany, Japan, South Korea, France, ect.
This is also a ridiculous argument, Monarchies are the farthest thing from a legitimate government. a monarchy is 0% of votes for someone to be able to be unchecked and able to rule in any way they wish. A republic has a parliament or congress to check up on leaders and control the authority of the leaders.
This does not exist in a monarchy! Representation leads to prosperity of the people and allow minorities that are in poverty to advance.
Round 3, it's time for rebuttals.
1- Political stability
Con states that Monarchies are the opposite of political stability, but he doesn't says how. He gives no examples.
Con also states that in Republics there is more than one political leader and this gives the country stability. If that was true, than Latin America would be one of the most stable regions in the world, since there are many parties there would be many political leaders and therefore the representation would be shared. History tell us this is not true. A good example for this is Brazil. During the reign of Emperor Pedro II(1840-1889) the country was for almost half a century an island of political stability surrounded by the Latin American republican instability sea. And until 15 years ago that was the period of most political stability and development in Brazilian history.
And the Empire of Brazil is a great example of a Monarchy working and benefiting it's people. Corruption and inflation were low, the country was recognized as a major power in the whole world, the only thing that ruined it was slavery, which the Dynasty always fought against, but could not end it over night because it could break a civil war, just like it happened in the United States REPUBLIC. The Emperor did not want to see a war in his country, which would kill lots of people and ruin the country's economy. This completely destroys Con's statement saying Monarchs only look for their own good.
In the end of Con's argument he states that no man can believe he is above the law. Con is right. No man can believe he is above the law. Unfortunately, Con thinks that Monarchs think they are. This shows (and a later arguments will show it even more) how Con is ignorant on this issue. The duty of every Constitutional Monarch is to protect the law his entire life. He isn't above it. If he makes anything against the law, he will respond for his crime as any citizen would. An example the recent case of Infanta Christina of Spain, the youngest daughter of the king. she was called to court to explain if she has any involvement on her husband corruption affair. Now in Brazil, a Republic, corrupt politicians in most cases never go to jail or even see a court. In a recent corruption scandal in Brazil - the Mensalão Scandal- It took years for the corrupted to be judged and some of them even left the country or stated it was political persecution! Tell me some cases about corruption with Monarchs. This was a point to be discussed on Political Corruption.
2- Political Corruption
On this issue, Con against shows his ignorance. He says Monarchies use fear to have their power. Please, tell me more about the Monarchical tyranny on Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Belgium, Luxembourg, Spain, etc. and the freedom enjoyed by the people of the Republic of Cuba, China and North Corea. I didn't want to enter in this point, where we would debate bad Republics and bad Monarchies. There are bad example of both, but there are also good. In this debate, I'm trying to prove how good Monarchies are better than good Republics. And yes, all Monarchies today have Parliaments most of them elected by the people. I don't where Con took that from.
Con asks for an example of a Monarchy working. I really did not need to give Con an example since his ignorance gave me two: UK and Japan. Yes, Con, the UNITED KINGDOM and the EMPIRE OF JAPAN ARE MONARCHIES! Please, answer me in your turn, WHERE THE HELL DID YOU TOOK THE IDEA THAT THIS TWO COUNTRIES, WHERE THE HEAD OF STATE ARE A QUEEN AND AN EMPEROR, NOT PRESIDENTS, ARE REPUBLICS?!?!?!?!?! This is shocking.
And now the example that proves my point. The today Europe is suffering from an economic crisis, we know that. However, with the exception of Spain, the Monarchies in Europe are in a much better situation than most Republic. The only republic you can argue it's in a good situation is Germany, although the Scandinavian Monarchies are in a better situation, like NORWAT, SWEEDEN AND DENMAK. Yes, here are some Monarchies that work, here is your example.
Here, Con attacked the Monarchy saying that the Head of State doesn't get any votes to be there. However, Con doesn't show how is it Legitimate for a President where 49% of the population did not vote for him is legitimate. I'll be back with this point later.
Monarchy's are familistic. They are based on a natural institution: the family. The main principle of monarchy is that the country should be rule by the most natural principle, that is the family. I don't remember having an election for my parents, do you? Monarchies are based on a natural right, while Republics are on a man made thing. It is not natural.
Oh, and Monarchies do have Parliaments. LEt me remind you that in the same time European Monarchies are today Constitutional, they are PARLAMENTARY Monarchies. The UK, Spain, Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Luxembourg, all have Parliaments and they are also the most democratic countries in the world.
Con added a new topic to be debated. I'm ok with that.
Con states that there is no representation in Monarchies, especially to the minorities. Let me remind Con of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire, where ALL were represented in the Diet. The Austrian-Hungarian Parliament was a multi-etnical and linguistic Parliament. Con's argument falls apart.
And Monarchies are at same time supra-national and multi-racial. All European Monarchs are descendants of foreigners and have a multi-etnical background, therefore making monarchies safer for minorities than Republics.
1) OK just to start, YOU STILL HAVE NO EXAMPLES OF A WORKING MONARCHY, if Brazil is so good then why was there Slavery? and a civil war overthrowing them? To address the Latin America argument, Latin America is bad because of a history of clash and poverty CAUSED BY SPAIN'S MONARCHY. Republics have a history of working unlike monarchies, They provide peace and prosperity THIS POINT HAS GONE UNREFUETED.
My opponents only argument to saying monarchs believe they are above the law is an example of a monarchs daughter. THIS DOESN'T SHOW MONARCHS FOLLOW LAWS, IT ONLY SHOWS THEY CARE FOR THEMSELVES. MY OPPONENT DID NOT REFUTE THE FACT MONARCHS KILL OPPOSITION SUCH AS OTHERS IN LINE FOR POWER, This is political instability and corruption that doesn't happen in Republics.
2)His only examples of bad republics is CUBA, Which inst a republic but a dictatorship or monarchist government where leadership is passed through blood, And NORTH KOREA, Which is also a dictatorship or monarchist government. Thus this point Flows to my side. Again in a monarchy corruption is plentiful and monarchs kill one another in their own family for power. His Examples of working monarchies weren't even monarchies but constitutional monarchies which are not the same so you cannot look to his arguments. Thus this argument flows to me.
3)My opponent seems to think we live in the 1700 or renascences era, Maybe even before WWII, Both the UK and Japan Have moved from monarchies to a Republic Parliamentary system, Their king/queen/emperor have no political power in the state. The Act of Settlement Took the Queen of England power and gave it to their parliament. Thus I win this argument too.
4)Here My opponent tries to avert the burden of proof to me, however i am not proving anything, he must show monarchies are superior, but either way He does not readdress my argument that MONARCHS GET 0% OF VOTES, THUS YOU ARE BETTER REPRESENTED BY A REPUBLIC WITH 51% VOTES.
He argues that you don't chose your parents but this doesn't show a monarchy as better, it essentially says EVEN IF YOU GET A BAD LEADER WHO DOESN'T ALIGN WITH HIS PEOPLE IT SUCKS TO BE YOU. BECAUSE HE DIDN'T CHOSE HIS PARENTS! Thus I win this arguement too.
5) My opponents only example of a Representative government is again, NOT A PLAIN MONARCHY THAT THE RESOLUTION CALLS FOR, AND IT COLLAPSED, so the only example of representation is a monarchy was a failed state. Republics provide this representation, I gave clear examples of this, thus I win this argument too.
Con seems to be confused. He thinks that I'm arguing for a "plain" Monarchy, not for Constitutional Monarchy. First, what the hell is a "plain" Monarchy? Second, I'm arguing for MONARCHY, I never said "plain" Monarchy. Therefore, I can use any kind of Monarchy to defend my thesis, being them Constitutional or "plain".
Con shows he did not read my sources and doesn't now much about Latin America History. Yes, there was slavery during the Empire of Brazil, as the United States had and all other Republics on Latin America. The difference between the Brazilian Monarchy and the Republics was (a) there were no Coup d'etat in Brazil until the fall of the Monarchy (which was a Coup d'etat against the Monarchy support on ending slavery) and (b) the Monarchy made the end of slavery peaceful due to the stability the country had because of the Monarchy and because of the continuity factor. This did not happened in the United States. 300 thousand people died in the Civil War because of the slavery. In Brazil, none have died. The only one who lost was the Imperial Family, which due to it's support for the end of slavery was overthrown by the military with support from ex slave owners. And, please Con, explain to me: if Brazil and the other Latin American countries had almost the same kind of colonization, why was Brazil better than it's neighbor Republics? Why was Brazil stable and the Republics where not? And why when the Monarchy in Brazil was overthrown it then started the Political persecutions, instabilities and corruption?
Cons states that I did not give him an examples of Monarchs following the law. Well, he also did not gave examples of Monarchs not following the law, nor about Monarchs killing the opposition and the others in the line of the throne. I know there were persecutions in some Monarchies, but there is also political persecution in some Republics.
And here are a list of Presidents that persecute and kill the opposition:
Juan Domingo Peron
and many others
And being Constitutional Monarchies MONARCHIES, I already gave examples of working Monarchies.
Con argues that a dictatorship can't be a Republic. Why not? And Con thinks that, since the power in Cuba and North Korea is passed by blood, they are a Monarchy. This is wrong. There where in history cases of elective Monarchies, like the Holy Roman Empire, Sweden until 1544, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and the Vatican!
And Con did not explain why s there so much corruption in Republics that are considered to be democratic, like Brazil, Argentina, Italy and Russia. It is certainly not because of the Monarchy. Con only criticizes the Monarchy, but he doesn't shows any arguments or sources to defend Republics
Here, Con again runs away from the topic. He doesn't argue about economics, but politics. And Con shows again his lack of knowledge on history. ALL CHRISTIAN EUROPEAN MONARCHIES ALWAYS HAD PARLIAMENTS! Yes, all of them! France had one, England had one, Portugal, Spain, all had one. The difference between the Parliaments of those days and of today is that before they where elected by the Aristocracy and the rich bourgeois, and they didn't had as much power as today. Local Parliaments also existed and they had a lot of power, like in Federalism.
BUT THIS ISN'T ECONOMICS!
Con did not show how a Republic is better for the peoples prosperity than a Monarchy.
Monarchies have a significance importance in history, especially in Western history, on building the civilization. Christianity wouldn't get to the point it is today if it weren't for Monarchies. The Western culture was preserved because of Monarchies. Therefore, it is completely legitimate that the ones who preserved our culture and our liberties should reign over us.
I gave an excellent example of representation of minorities in a Monarchy, which my opponent doesn't accept. But he still did not give me one example of Republics supporting minorities. Think about the United States. Blacks were treated in a different form from whites until the second half of the XX century. After WWI, when Monarchies were erased from Europe by the stupid idea of "democracism" from the United States, minorities were persecuted all over Eastern Europe, especially Jews. Except for rare examples, Jews lived a safe and prosper life in Europe during the monarchies times(especially with the Hapsburg), but with the Republics they were soon persecuted, since 51% of the electors did not like them.
https://mises.org... Page 133-179(Chapter IV)
Preston forfeited this round.
I'll wait for my opponent.
To address Brazil, AS MY OPPONENT STATED "there were no Coup d'etat in Brazil until the fall of the Monarchy" WHICH MEANS IT WAS UNSTABLE, I REST MY CASE.
I do not need to state monarchs who killed opposition, because it is common sence, if you need a list look to The english empire before it fell.
ALL OF HIS EXAMPLES ARE OF COMMUNIST OR SOCIALIST GOVERNMENTS, ALL WITH DICTATORSHIPS, I request my opponent actually learn about these governments before he decides to align a dictatorship with a republic.
And CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHIES ARE NOT WHAT THE RESOLUTION CALLS FOR. WE CANNOT LOOK TO ANY ARGUMENTATION BASED ON CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHIES.
A DICTATORSHIP IS NOT A REPUBLIC! IT IS A SEPARATE TYPE OF GOVERNMENT ALMOST EXACTLY LIKE A MONARCHY.
I again argue we cannot look to any argument my opponent makes that inst a pure monarchy as stated in the resolution.
MY JOB AS NEG ISN'T TO SAY REPUBLICS ARE SUPERIOR, IT IS MY OPPONENTS JOB TO SHOW MONARCHIES ARE SUPERIOR, HE HAS FAILED TO DO SO, THUS I WIN.
PRESERVING A RELIGION IS A ILLEGITIMATE ARGUMENT, THAT CANNOT SHOW THE LEGITIMACY OF A MONARCHY.
MY JOB AS NEG ISN'T TO SAY REPUBLICS ARE SUPERIOR, IT IS MY OPPONENTS JOB TO SHOW MONARCHIES ARE SUPERIOR, HE HAS FAILED TO DO SO, THUS I WIN.
In republics minorities are supported look to Athens and Romes stable republic befoer its monarchy, which led to its fall.
MONARCHIES DO NOT GIVE ANY FORM OF REPRESENTATION. AND AGAIN, MY JOB AS NEG ISN'T TO SAY REPUBLICS ARE SUPERIOR, IT IS MY OPPONENTS JOB TO SHOW MONARCHIES ARE SUPERIOR, HE HAS FAILED TO DO SO, THUS I WIN.
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.