Monarchy vs Autocracy

I will argue that autocracy is a more effective, and overall 'better' governmental system than monarchy. Just as a note, I'm afraid I will not comply with my opponent's request that we limit our examples to the past 115 years of history. This is because the debate does not specify any time period that we would be debating, and also the vast majority of absolute monarchies occurred further back than 115 years ago so it would be short-sighted to not use them as examples for or against absolute monarchy. The truth is that there were so few absolute monarchies in the modern and post-modern eras that it would be foolish to limit ourselves chronologically. Meritocratic One of the reasons that autocracy is superior to monarchy is that an autocratic leader is generally selected on merit and not birth. The reason why this is an important factor is that a meritocratically selected leader would, logically, be a much more capable person than if the leader was selected with no consideration of merit. This is the case with monarchy - the King/Queen would be given a position of absolute governing power by birthright even if they were clearly a poor leader. A poor leader is, needless to say, not very productive to a country. Evidence of this would be Queen Mary of England, who was an inadequate leader who brought religious turmoil to England. (1) In an autocracy, an incapable leader would simply not have achieved the position of leader in the first place. Therefore an autocracy is a superior governmental system because it has a lesser capacity to allow poor leaders to exist. Accountability A common theme in absolute monarchies is the belief that the monarch has a 'divine right to rule' or some concept that allows them to assert a justification for their status that is above social approval. (2) Such ideas place Kings and Queens on unassailable pedestals from which they believe that they are not wholly accountable to the people, as they would maintain that their right to rule is independent of the people's approval. If a ruler is not accountable then they have far less motivation to moderate their edicts to please the people. This leads to unpopular leaders that have often caused revolutions and civil wars. A prime example being King Charles I, who believed that his 'divine right to rule' entitled him to absolute power irrespective of his support (or lack thereof) from parliament and the people. (3) Aspirational In a monarchy, the only way that one can rule is if they are born in the right family at the right time. If you weren't, then there is no possible way in which you can lead the country. This is unnecessarily nepotistic and contrary to the ideal that anyone can, if they work hard enough or are skilled enough, become a national leader. Autocracy does not have this problem. Whilst it may be extremely difficult to become a leader, it is possible no matter one's birth. An example being Josef Stalin, who became the leader of the USSR despite his humble beginnings as a cobbler's son. (4) I will now respond to my opponent's arguments. His first argument asserts that monarchy is superior because it presents a clear transition between rulers when the incumbent dies, in contrast, autocracies often have disputes that cost many lives. Whilst I agree that this may be the case, in a stable autocracy the transition between leaders is remarkably smooth. For example, Alexander Lukashenko (the President of Belarus) is an autocratic leader (5) who took power with no bloodshed at all. I will note that autocracy and democracy are not mutually exclusive, and so if an autocratic leader is chosen democratically then peaceful and transparent transitions of power can take place. Furthermore, monarchies are notorious for inheritance disputes. The Wars of the Roses were a series of wars that were directly caused over disputes as to the rightful owner of the crown. One only has to read/watch Game of Thrones to realise how complex monarchial inheritance can be, and how wars can be started because of it. Agreed, I cannot use fictional evidence but my point stands, that disputes over royal succession were not infrequent and were often bloody. In my opponent's next argument, he states that monarchy is better than autocracy because the former is an embodiment of old-world conservatism (and therefore more supported by the public) whereas autocracies are often based on new concepts and ideas. According to my opponent, support for an autocracy largely dies along with its figurehead and caused subsequent turmoil. The problem with this argument is that in most autocracies, the system is still supported even when their figurehead dies. For example, after Stalin died the public still supported the regimes of Khrushchev and later Brezhnev. This example could be seen to be countered by the examples presented by my opponent. However, these examples are unsatisfactory for the following reasons: 1. The USSR had only been created two years before Lenin's death (6), therefore it is not a sufficient example of normal transitionary behaviour of an autocracy. The USSR was a very young and unstable country at the time of Lenin's death, thus the results that came from his death cannot be realistically be claimed to be representative of a stable autocracy. 2. Germany had just lost World War 2 when Hitler died, it is hardly surprising that National Socialism died out. Again, it is not a valid example because there were too many additional factors to take into account. 3. The same applies to Mussolini, his country was under direct threat of invasion. 4. Saddam was ousted by the West at the beginning of the Iraq war, the turmoil that came afterwards was most likely to do with the fact that Iraq was engulfed in said war and not because of disputes regarding autocratic leadership. Therefore, all my opponent's examples that support his second argument are not valid ones, as they do not pertain to an established peacetime autocracy. I thank my opponent and now I will pass the debate over to him! (1) http://www.royal.gov.uk... (2) http://royalcentral.co.uk... (3) Ibid (4) http://www.biography.com... (5) http://bti2003.bertelsmann-transformation-index.de... (6) http://news.bbc.co.uk...