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.'No problem, all I need to fulfil the burden of proof is a single sound argument.'meritocratically' isn't a word'Yes it is (1), in the same way that 'democratically' is a word.'how many of the U.S. presidents or U.K. prime ministers were actually competent for their job, 30%... maybe?'Far more than that. Competent is defined as:'having the necessary ability, knowledge, or skill to do something successfully' (2)The vast majority of Presidents and Prime Ministers have fulfilled this criteria, despite many of them being unpopular. Even the most incompetent Presidents and Prime Ministers have not been as incompetent as some Kings. An example being King Otto I of Bavaria, who remained king despite being severely mentally ill (3) and unable to rule. In contrast, a mentally unfit president, autocrat or prime minister would be replaced with a more competent man as soon as it became clear that we was not mentally fit to rule.'Reason may dictate it, but experience does not.'This debate is as much about comparing monarchy and autocracy in concept as well as in practice, so if reason backs up my argument then this must be taken into account.'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 [...] 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 'Whilst I do not condone the actions of these leaders, they were actually competent insofar as they were able to rule the country. They might have done terrible things, but if we look at their actual capability in managing the country, then they were not incompetent.'What do you think brought Mussolini down, was Milan some freak accident?!'It definitely wasn't a 'full blown revolution'. The actual ousting of Mussolini was bloodless - he offered no resistance to it. (4)'Really? you are accreting that the vanguard party was in anyway accountable to the public?!'Perhaps not in actuality, but the concept of a vanguard party is that which represents and is formed of the proletariat, hence requiring their support.'The public of Germany hated the NDSP in 1943 and onward''The Italian people hated the Fasces parti 1943 and onward'Only because the Axis began to lose the war in 1943; the NSDAP/Fasces party could hardly please the public when they were trying their darndest to win the largest war there has ever been.'The public of Russia hated the communist party 1924 and onward'As my opponent has not provided a source for this assertion, it is as of yet unwarranted.'The public of Iraq and Syria hated the Ba'athist party 1969 and onward'Again, this is an unwarranted assertion. After a bit of research though, it would seem that the Ba'athist party were not disproportionately hated. During the latter half of the 20th century, Ba'athist Iraq underwent significant economic growth, with 'its citizens enjoying standards of healthcare, housing, education and earnings comparable with those of European countries.' (5)'Monarchies are intrinsically nepotistic, but as I have already asserted, being selected on merit, is not often better.'Yes, but 100% of monarchies are nepotistic whereas only about 40% of autocracies are nepotistic, therefore autocracies are superior inasmuch as we accept nepotism to be a negative attribute for a governmental system.'Lenin's unsteady foundation was clearly the reason why the transition was so bloody.'Yes, but the only reason that he maintained an unsteady foundation (in relation to his successor) was because he suffered a sudden stroke. No doubt he didn't expect to die at the time he did, which would explain why he did not appoint a successor.'Also, you missed like two other examples'The same explanation applies to them as well. Germany had just lost WW1 in 1918, and the USSR was breaking up in 1991. These are hardly fair examples of ordinary autocratic practice.'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.'Yet it is not necessarily a bad thing that Maoism failed, especially considering it was a far from perfect ideology. It is better that ideologies are free to adapt on a leader's death, providing a fresh start, than for archaic ideologies to be kept alive by an absolute monarchy.I thank my opponent for such an interesting debate. I learnt a lot and I'm sure that he did too :) (1) http://en.wiktionary.org...(2) Google: 'Define Competent'(3) http://en.wikipedia.org...(4) http://www.history.com...(5) http://en.wikipedia.org...