Monarchy vs Autocracy

I will start off by immediately saying that due to my form of government being the oldest form of government in history, and therefore there having an endless example of just about anything a government has every done, I believe that it is only reasonable to try and limit it down to the last 115 years. As to your claim about how it would be short-sighted not use examples of the prior 4,000 years, I do not see how the behaviors of Ramses or Sargon would be at all resembling to that of a modern day Monarchy. It should have been assumed at the beginning of this debate that we would be talking about a modern society, not one that is eons old. Secondly, note that my opponent has not yet mentioned how autocracy is superior to monarchy aside from the presumption of meritocracy. On the note of meritocracy, my opponent claims that "an autocratic leader is generally selected on merit and not birth. The reason why this is an important factor is that a meritocratically selected leader would, logically, be a much more capable person than if the leader was selected with no consideration of merit." This sounds logical, however, if looked upon closely is obviously false! The idea that a leader selected on merit will almost always be good can be experimented with in a modern republic. Tell me, are the leaders of a modern republic almost always good and capable leaders? ( If the answer is anything other than no, I will not continue on in this debate, as I have slit my wrists because of humanities stupidity.) The first and most obvious example of an inept autocrat would be Mussolini! The man made minimal advancements to his government, and completely failed on them during WW2. Secondly, at the many autocratic leaders are not elected, rather gain their positions of power via revolution or coup. This means, that weather they are capable of leadership or not they forced their way to power and that is that. Incapable leaders achieve power all the time ( Mussolini being a good example) Truly, in an autocracy, leadership is determined by whom can either back stab the most, or whom can deliver the best speeches. Thirdly my opponent claims that Monarchies are unaccountable due to many of them believing that they have the divine right to rule. You say this as if autocrats or any different! Dictators enact edicts that the people will despise all the time believing that they know better than the people ( the vanguard party is the embodiment of this) However, were as the divine right of kings has all but died out in todays monarchs, the vanguard party still thrives among autocrats. Monarchists have grown out of the divine right, dictators are still learning. Fourthly, my opponent claims that it is only monarchies whom are nepotistic. Try telling this to Saddam Hussein whom appointed his brother-in-law Brig General Adnan Khairallah as Minister of Defense. Sons-in-law General Hussein Kamel, husband to Raghad Hussein, to lead Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons program. His brother, Colonel Saddam Kamel, husband to Rana Hussein, was placed in charge of the presidential security forces. Eldest son Uday was head of the Iraqi Olympic Committee and younger son Qusay was head of the Internal Security Forces. Half-brother Busho Ibrahim was the Deputy Minister of Justice. Or perhaps you would like to tell this to Stalin, who massacred thousands of his top generals and placed people he 'trusted' or liked in their place. Nepotism is rampant in both forms of government, do not place blame on just one. Fifthly, in an autocracy, transition can be smooth, so long as it is stable. As we have seen though, often times they are not stable. Russia 1924, Russia 1991, Germany 1918, Thailand Always. In a monarchy, the lines of inheritance is always clear so long as you have a child or brother, even in times of strife. Sixthly, Stalin's form of rule was vastly different then that of Khrushchev or Brezhnev. To this day, the Russian people despise Stalinism as they call it. To give an example were war was not involved, China after Mao. After Mao's death, China began to drift away from Maoism and more towards state capitalism. Another advantage of Monarchy, is that nations can be united via marriage. This can not happen under Autocracy. Nation must either be invaded ( almost always the case) or annexed ( almost never). Monarchies can unite nations via marriage and not shed a single drop of blood. I await my opponents response.