A monarchy is a good thing

So now that we have reached the ultimate round of this debate, I will sum up everything in my case and tie up loose ends, if there are any. PRO’s failure to meet the BOP: As the person making the claim PRO had the entirety of the Burden of proof to uphold the resolution ‘Monarchy is a good thing’. But what he has done is argue for constitutional monarchy, a dimmed down version and something that has a very different structure from actual absolute monarchy. If PRO wanted to do this he should have clarified it in the resolution or in the first round clearly but, unfortunately, he didn’t. Ergo, PRO has an unfulfilled BOP currently in his hand. PRO has also not properly addressed most of my arguments claiming them to be baseless. But the fact remains that this debate is about monarchy and my arguments hold perfect ground. As a matter of fact, the arguments that PRO has failed to address adequately, should be considered by default, as him conceding to them. A1) Monarchy gives extensive, unaccountable power to the executive. PRO has dismissed this argument by claiming that the example I have given is false. But what he fails to address is the perfect reasoning behind the argument. He also failed to address my example showing the power of the king of Saudi Arabia. Thus my statement: “When power is levied on a single person, the possibility of decisions taken for the country, being influenced by selfish motives or gains, is unavoidable. Saying that it doesn’t happen now doesn’t nullify its existence nor does it establish that it won’t happen again in the future.” remains uncontested and firm. A2) Monarchy establishes a class system and undermines the proper recognition of merit. PRO has conveniently skipped this whole argument stating that the argument doesn’t apply for a democratic monarchy. But even in a democratic or constitutional monarchy, the issue of discrimination based on birth doesn’t vanish. The questions I posed to my opponent: what does a monarch have that gives him the right to wield power and control over other people? Extreme luck? Is luck the only qualification required to rule a nation and take major decisions on the behalf of the people in the country? What rational explanation can you give for a society that chooses its leaders based on chance? remain un-addressed and it is a clear sign that PRO is trying to avoid this argument. A3) Lack of Democratic Accountability PRO states that:“So, in some cases, they may not need to be democratically accountable simply because they don’t have any power.” Primarily, ‘Some’ doesn’t mean ‘all’ so PRO has conceded to my argument that monarchy indeed does reduces democratic accountability because there are no elections. Second, it is false to say that they don’t have any power at all, it may be said that ‘some’ don’t use the power they have. Anyhow, my point is that ‘not using’ power is very much different from ‘not having’ power. “In cases of authoritarian monarchies, well, republican dictatorships aren’t democratically accountable either if no elections are taking place.” I’m not sure why PRO is bringing in republican dictatorships. The whole point of the argument was that, without elections there would be a lack of democratic accountability. The fact that PRO doesn’t deny this argument implies that he concedes to it. A4) It is not flexible and limits the country’s progress. This argument is not even addressed by PRO and him ignoring it, only serves to strengthen my case. A5) It imposes an unjustifiable public expense PRO makes a “The ends justify the means” type of argument to counter this assertion. But the virtues of monarchy that PRO has argued for are only shaky, at best. For example, he asserts that monarchy offers political stability but he hasn’t provided any logical ground to support this claim. Instead he has chosen to quote a few examples that could have very well happened because of the influence of other factors. And what proper right or qualification does the monarch have to use the money of the taxpayers? PRO also states that monarchy preserves culture, but how effectively does it do that? He doesn’t offer any conclusively evidence of monarchy doing as such. By his statement, does it mean that monarchies preserve culture better than other non-monarchic countries? If yes, then where is the proof? In fact with the increase in exposure of the royalty to the public through the means of media, kings, queens, princes and princesses are revealed to be mortal, fallible and sometimes foolish creatures. Their lives have become a constant source for media scrutiny, and their role in preserving cultural heritage has been reduced to the point of being insignificant. One key example from the U.K. member of the Monarchy Prince Harry, was his decision to attend a fancy-dress party dressed as a Nazi.[1] Not only was this a horrific lack of judgement but it also under-minded the fact that opposing the Nazis was arguably one of the finest moments of British National Heritage. So as I asserted before the position of a monarch is powerful and influential, the idea of handing it over to someone whose only qualification is ‘luck by birth’ is indeed preposterous. Concluding Statements: So to conclude: 1) Monarchy gives extensive, unaccountable power to a certain specific individual and the possibility of decisions taken for the country, being influenced by selfish motives or gains, is unavoidable. Saying that it doesn’t happen now doesn’t nullify its existence (cause it very well could be happening discreetly/secretly) nor does it establish that it won’t happen again in the future.” 2) Monarchy establishes a class system and undermines the proper recognition of merit. What does a monarch have that gives him the right to wield power and control over other people? Extreme luck? Is luck the only qualification required to rule a nation and take major decisions on the behalf of the people in the country? What rational explanation can one give for a society that chooses its leaders based on chance? I hope the point is clear. 3) There exists a lack of Democratic Accountability in monarch since there are no elections and the monarch doesn’t have to worry about losing his position over unsatisfactory decisions he might end up making. 4) It is not a flexible system and limits the country’s progress since a monarch is chosen by chance and not merit. People who might be more deserving would never be able to reach the position of a monarch. 5) It imposes an unjustifiable public expense since a great chunk of the taxpayer’s money gets used for the sake of the monarch including private requirements. And what proper right or qualification does the monarch have to use the money of the taxpayers? I hence, through my case and by rebutting PRO’s arguments, have necessarily negated the resolution. And as agreed, this round will be the last round of this debate and the next round may be used for exchanging pleasantries or any other affair not concerning the debate, whichever PRO may deem as fit. Citations: 1: http://news.bbc.co.uk...