Monarchies are superior than Republics

Round 3, it's time for rebuttals.1- Political stabilityCon 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 CorruptionOn 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.3- EconomyCon 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.4- LegitimacyHere, 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.5- RepresentationCon 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. Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.bbc.co.uk... http://www.bbc.co.uk...