A monarchy is a good thing

My opponent seems to be a bit confused on a number of my arguments. So I would like to clarify: what I was trying to say is that monarchy does not automatically equal totalitarianism. One cannot argue that a monarchy is oppressive because not all of them are. Equally, one cannot argue that monarchies are good because they are My opponent seems confused concerning my arguments, so I better clarify. Some of my arguments were to show that monarchy does not equal totalitarianism, using successful European monarchies as an example of how monarchies can be democratic, and saying how republican governments can be dictatorships. I explained that monarchy and democracy are not mutually exclusive. So, with that in mind, what are the advantages of a monarchy that make monarchy a good thing? Political stability and cultural preservation. So, what example is there of a monarch keeping political stability? The El Tejerazo coup in Spain 1981 was quashed by the King of Spain, Juan Carlos I, by a television address denouncing the coup. Similarly, a coup in Thailand in the very same year was crushed by a royal statement of support for the government, allowing the army to halt the coup. Both times, the monarchs were the safeguard for stability and democracy in their country. Monarchies can do this, while republican governments can"t simply because the head of state does not enjoy the same level of support and wide recognition as a monarch has. Monarchies may or may not hold any power, but they certainly do have an identity that republican heads of state can only dream of. In a way, a royal family can be thought of as a family representing the nation: if they were presented as all "mystique" then they would have less of an intimate connection with the nation and ordinary people. My opponent"s arguments are largely baseless because he is concentrating on the vices of an unconstitutional monarchy. As I said, a monarchy can be both libertarian and authoritarian, so one cannot say that a monarchy isn"t good because they have too much power when in fact it is possible to have a monarchy with no power. So, in some cases, they may not need to be democratically accountable simply because they don"t have any power. In cases of authoritarian monarchies, well, republican dictatorships aren"t democratically accountable either if no elections are taking place. An example of a republican dictatorship would be Pol Pot of Cambodia (or, for some, Combodia?), who was actually not a monarch (I think my opponent ought to do his research a bit more carefully). My opponent, however, has a couple of arguments that I consider more serious. Firstly, cost. My opponent has quoted massive figures of royal expenditure and has said that this is unjustified. Well, I suggest not looking at it by overall figures but by how much a monarchy costs a taxpayer. And, for the UK, this is estimated to be 62p per person per year. Sixty two pence! Considering that a monarchy provides political stability and cultural unity, this is a bargain! Furthermore, some republican head of states can spend a lot of public money, for example President Erdogan of Turkey. Regarding what I quoted regarding the political stability of European monarchies, this is a published quote and I can do nothing about it but say that it seems more likely than not that monarchy has played a part in creating the stability of these countries. On other arguments, it is clear that my opponent has failed to understand my argument that both monarchies and republics can be dictatorships or democracies; a country"s freedom is not dependent on whether its head of state is a monarch or an elected president. In conclusion, my argument is based on two aspects. First, that a monarchy is not automatically authoritarian or libertarian; and both a republic and a monarchy can be dictatorships or liberal. And second, now that it is established that monarchism and republicanism are, so to speak, "even", a monarchy provides political stability and cultural unity. The fact that many associate monarchy with authoritarianism is, I think, down to the fact that for most of the history of mankind, we have been ruled by non-democratic monarchies. But the events of the last century show that it is not just monarchies that can be non-democratic. I urge those reading this debate to realise this and realise that, while voting against monarchy may seem the most immediate answer, there is more to the question than is generally assumed.