Monarchy vs Autocracy

I'm going to have to agree to disagree with Pro regarding the timescale of this debate, but for the sake of civility I will limit my examples to the past 115 years from now on, despite there being very few examples of absolute monarchies in this time. 'note that my opponent has not yet mentioned how autocracy is superior to monarchy aside from the presumption of meritocracy.' Ah! But that assumes that my argument from meritocracy is invalid! I will now explain why it is not. Note that I do not say that a leader selected on merit will be almost always a more capable leader, what I say is that a meritocratically selected leader is more likely to be a capable leader than if the leader is nepotistically selected (as is the case in a monarchy). Of course there have been poor leaders of autocracies, such as Mussolini, but logically speaking, a governmental system that selects its leader based on merit is more likely to actually have a capable leader than a system that selects its leader based on family. To use an analogy, let us suppose that I have a boxing class and I want to select someone to compete in a large boxing match. Should I pick the boxer based on merit? Or should I pick my son, who is also in the boxing class? Prima Facie, it is more likely that I will get a capable boxer if I select him based on merit and not family connection. This is the case with monarchy vs autocracy. Obviously there have been some incompetent autocratic leaders, but reason dictates that autocracy is superior to monarchy insofar as it increases the probability that the country will have a capable leader. My opponent makes a valid point that leadership is often determined by back-stabbing and good speeches, however these tactics would only really enable a leader to get into power initially. If the leader is then found to be incompetent then they can be ousted (just as Mussolini was). In contrast, a King demands loyalty irrespective of competency, and so a nation would be stuck with an incompetent monarch that could only be removed by full-scale revolution. '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).' Agreed, the vanguard party did have a certain elitist aspect to them, but they were still accountable because their success was dependent on the support of the proletariat. Ultimately, the autocrats are still normal people that have risen to power, in contrast to the oft-revered nature of kingship that, in a way, presents monarchs as less accountable because their right to rule is not granted to them by the public. Autocracy is based on the Lockean theory that their rule is conferred legitimacy by the public. Autocrats do not assert any higher authority from which their right to rule originates. My opponent makes the claim that the "divine right of kings" has died out in modern absolute monarchy, yet the rule of the King of Saudi Arabia (the most powerful contemporary absolute monarch) still manifests a form of divine-legitimacy (1). I concur that autocracies can often be nepotistic, but the two aren't essentially connected. In other words, nepotism is not intrinsically part of autocracy as a concept - so even if autocrats like Saddam Hussein are nepotistic it does not mean that this is because he is an autocrat. It is perfectly possible to have a non-nepotisitic autocracy whereas it is not possible to have a non-nepotisitic monarchy. Monarchy is intrinsically nepotistic. And considering that this debate is over monarchy vs autocracy as concepts, this entails that autocracy is superior to monarchy, if we accept that nepotism is a negative attribute. My opponent goes on to accept that in an autocracy, transition can be smooth so long as it is stable. We are in agreement here, but it does not pertain to the debate to raise examples of unstable autocracies where we have no proof that their autocratic nature is the cause of this instability. Whilst Russia was unstable in 1924, there is no proof that this is because it is an autocracy. It is far more likely that Russia was unstable because it was still recovering from a devastating civil war. Unless a clear connection is presented, such examples are no more than red herrrings. It is true that there have been very few inheritance-disputes in modern absolute monarchies, but that is largely due to the fact that there are hardly any absolute monarchies in the 20th/21st centures. My opponent claims that after Mao Zedong's death, China underwent a change in political ideology. However, he does not seem to explain exactly why this is a bad thing. Sure, the death of an autocrat might stimulate political change, but this is not an inherent reason as to why autocracy is inferior. The last argument in favour of monarchy is that nations can be united by marriage. However, this is not necessary in the 21st century because a far more effective and regulated unification of nations is by alliances and international organisations such as NATO and the UN. Secondly, there are so few absolute monarchies nowadays that there are hardly any countries that can be united via marriage. I now pass this debate back to my opponent! (1) http://en.wikipedia.org...(political)