Monarchy vs Autocracy

I did not say that it was your argument of merit was invalid, I said that ,so far, it was your only argument. Note that, what you ACTUALLY said was " a meritocratically selected leader would, logically, be a much more capable person than if the leader was selected with no consideration of merit." Might I say before we go on, that the word ' meritocratically' isn't a word. Now, even governments that select people based on their prior deeds have shown that, in most cases, that they are still incompetent. As an example, how many of the U.S. presidents or U.K. prime ministers were actually competent for their job, 30%... maybe? A good president or prime minister or even a good autocrat for that matter is about as common as a good king. Do not speak as if though selecting people on prior merit is so much better than to doing out of blood line, because we have seen it is not. Reason may dictate it, but experience does not. My opponent asserts that quote " If the leader is then found to be incompetent then they can be ousted." Really? Papa doc sure has hell was incompetent for his job but he retained power up until his death after ruling Haiti for 40 years. Francisco Franco ( I think I got his name wrong but he was the fascist dictator of Spain) Kept his country a back water for 30 years and he was never ousted. The Kim's are some of the most incompetent leaders in history and they have been ruling for the past 70 years without being questioned once. No attempt was ever made to oust these leaders. You then say that in order for a king to be ousted, a full blown revolution would be necessary. What do you think brought Mussolini down, was Milan some freak accident?! My opponent states that the vanguard party was " accountable because their success was dependent on the support of the proletariat". Really? you are accreting that the vanguard party was in anyway accountable to the public?! The public of Germany hated the NDSP in 1943 and onward, but the party did not care nor act upon it. The public of Russia hated the communist party 1924 and onward, but the party did not care nor act upon it. The public of Iraq and Syria hated the Ba'athist party 1969 and onward, but the party did not care nor act upon it. The Italian people hated the Fasces parti 1943 and onward, but the party did not care nor act upon it. Tell, me once again, how the vanguard is accountable to the people. At least in a monarchy, the monarch knows who's head the people are gonna want if things hit the fan. Monarchies are intrinsically nepotistic, but as I have already asserted, being selected on merit, is not often better. Let us consider the fact that the communists had thourghly won the war by 1924, and that reconstruction was going if a bit shaking, semi-smooth. We can see CLEARLY, that Lenin had held supreme power and had made few plans as to a successor. When he died, since no one was exactly sure whom should lead, we got everyone's favorite handle bared mustache Russian as leader of the USSR. Lenin's unsteady foundation was clearly the reason why the transition was so bloody. Also, you missed like two other examples. Also, there were quite a few absolute monarchies in the 20/21st centaury; for example Germany, Austria, Bulgaria, Russia, Manchu, Turkey, Persia, Albania, Jordan, the entire Arabian peninsula, Korea, and Ethiopia... to name a few. On the topic of Mao Zedong. We are not talking about changing from our current ideology, we are speaking about keeping them alive, therefore any transition is to be considered a failure of said government. your turn