A monarchy is a good thing

I will kick-start this round by addressing PRO’s last statements in the previous round. He wants me to check what 'constitutional monarchy' is and asks me to find the number of people killed because of the queen. But what he forgets is that the resolution he is advocating for is neither about ‘Constitutional monarchy’ nor does it specify a time period. So as PRO in this debate, he has to show that the concept of monarchy itself is a good thing irrelevant of the time frame. With that made clear I will move on to make my case. I will be using this round to strengthen my previous opening arguments and rebut my adversary’s contentions. My case as I see it has five major arguments. A1) Monarchy gives extensive, unaccountable power to the executive. The monarchs are the supreme judicator, legislator and executor of the nation. They have the final say in almost all major decisions that are taken for the country. Monarchs of countries like Saudi Arabia have the authority of presiding over and controlling the Council of Ministers which comprises the first and second deputy prime ministers and 23 ministers with portfolio and five ministers of state. There is also a 150-member Consultative Assembly, appointed by the King, which can propose legislation to the King but has no legislative powers itself, including no role in budget formation.[1] Such concentration of power has shown us devastating outcomes. My adversary advocates for monarchy in the United Kingdom alone, but I should bring to his notice that UK isn’t the only country that is run by a monarch. History would tell us about how the concentration of power on a single person has turned for the worse. But let’s not go so back, shall we. Only a few decades back in the 1970’s was the rule of Pol Pot, the ruler of Combodia. ‘During his ruling period his government made urban dwellers move to the countryside to work in collective farms and on forced labour projects. The combined effects of executions, strenuous working conditions, malnutrition and poor medical care caused the deaths of approximately 25 percent of the Cambodian population.’[1]In all, an estimated 1 to 3 million people (out of a population of slightly over 8 million) died due to the policies of his four-year premiership.’ Even though this might seem like an extreme case example the point to be understood is simple and rational: 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. A2) Monarchy establishes a class system and undermines the proper recognition of merit. No matter how you see it, monarchy is discrimination. Monarchy is the discrimination based on birth, just like the caste system that is now banned in many countries. It is a poor structure for society since it classifies people based on an externality that they have no control over. I ask my adversary these questions, 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? A lottery game can depend upon chance but not the future of a country. A just society should ensure that merit becomes the factor in authorizing leadership to a person and not birth. A3) Lack of Democratic Accountability Elected leaders are subject to scrutiny and their position depends upon how well they perform in their term in power. Elections thus make such leaders accountable to the people and the incentive of continuing their leadership makes them weigh the decisions they make for the country more carefully. And moreover, elections provide the people the power to weed out ineffective leaders, thus letting them chose the rightful people to rule their country. Monarchs on the other hand though are not held accountable to people through ballot boxes. This gives them the freedom to exercise power to their whims and fancies. Even though such freedom is not used, openly nowadays, it cannot be assumed that it isn’t, and wouldn’t be, done. A4) It is not flexible and limits the country’s progress. In monarchies, especially strong ones where power is centralized in the position of the monarch, the major issue is that the whole system depends on the monarch being competent. If the monarch becomes an ineffective or poor leader over time, the system makes it difficult for others around him to remove him out of his position or get him replaced with a leader who is more effective. This undeniably can lead to wrong judgements or inefficient decisions and can even deter the country from possible progress. An elected oligarchy though, do not share the same problem, since they are subjected to elections and those who are ineffective can be prevented by the people from acquiring power again. A5) It imposes an unjustifiable public expense The costs of monarchy are unjustifiable. Typically monarchs and their immediate family receive substantial amounts of money from the state to maintain luxurious lifestyles, complete with servants, expensive holidays and hobbies. The state also spends a great deal to maintain and run palaces and other royal residences, which are seldom accessible to the general public who support them through their taxes. In the UK what is officially termed as 'Head of State Expenditure' amounted to £40 million in the 2007-8 financial year. However, this excludes the cost of security for the numerous family members and residences. Although the security costs have not been confirmed, it is estimated that it exceeds £50 million a year![3] So, if monarchy does nothing as PRO claims then why should such a huge expenditure be spent on it, when it could be used elsewhere? Rebuttals: So before I begin I would like to point out the fact of how PRO has been comparing republic political parties with monarchy and trying to show that the latter is better. I should hence again remind him that the resolution he is supporting isn’t ‘Monarchy is better than a republic’. PRO is supposed to show that ‘A monarchy is a good thing’ and such arguments add little strength to his case because showing something is better than something else doesn’t necessarily mean it’s good, for example, pickpockets may be better than bank robbers in a way but showing as such doesn’t make the pickpocket innocent. So I hope PRO brings in more arguments that actually show how monarchy is a good thing and does justice to his position, in this debate. Before addressing directly the points made by PRO, I would like to point out some errors in the logic used by PRO to support his case. Correlation without causation: PRO has shown that a few countries that follow monarchism are developed and are in good shape. But correlation does not imply causation i.e, a relation between two variables does not necessarily imply that one causes the other. Let’s take an example of ice creams and murders. During a detailed analysis by a reporter, he found that all countries that have high murder rates have high ice cream sales too, thus from his observation he concludes that ice cream sales increase murder rate. So is the reporter logically correct in coming to such a conclusion? Certainly not. Similarly, PRO has to show that Monarchism has been the sole factor in causing prosperity in these countries. The gambler’s fallacy: PRO has assumed that since no monarch has turned out to be any sort of a tyrant in recent years, monarchy itself would be good. So to analyse this let’s take a scenario where say in twenty consecutive tosses of a fair coin, all the results turn out to be heads, but still it would erroneous to conclude that the twenty-first toss would also be a head because, the outcome isn’t decided by pattern but by chance. Similarly just because no one who is a monarch right now, is evil or is a tyrant doesn’t guarantee that the monarchs of the future won’t be such! Cherry picking: PRO has made the majority of his arguments basing it on UK. Countries like Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emrites, Monaco etc. levy a huge amount of power to their monarchs and thus make PRO’s arguments of monarchs having no power fall flat to the ground. Also he has picked constitutional monarchy, a dimmed down version of monarchy to make his entire case. It might be easier given PRO’s position to argue for constitutional monarchy but I should again remind him that in order for him to win the debate he should address monarchy as a whole not a single part of it! Addressing PRO’s arguments; He claims that Monarchy promotes a conservative atmosphere and prevents extremist political ideas. But he hasn’t provided any rational evidence to either of these claims and until he has done so, such assertions will be considered empty. He asserts that In the UK, the monarchy does absolutely nothing politically. Also the monarch yields absolutely no power the democratically elected head of government has the power But we see him as I had mentioned earlier, taking the easier route out by arguing for constitutional monarchies and the UK. I ask PRO to stick to his burden of proof. Having a monarch represents a connection with the past and a preservation of the nation"s past culture and way of life. I fail to see the logic here and ask PRO to defend this statement, but anyhow, conversely, it could be argued that instead of protecting the Nation's heritage, the Monarchy has largely become an embarrassment. In an age of mass-media monarchies are no longer able to maintain the mystique which once set them apart from the common man. Over to you PRO! Ref: 1: https://en.wikipedia.org... 2: https://en.wikipedia.org... 3: http://www.centreforcitizenship.org...