Democracy is the best ruling system

Democracy is the counting of heads, not what’s in them!FRAMEWORKFirst of all, I would like to make some words with the definition/resolution. Then, I will offer a yardstick clarifying my position in this very debate. Eventually, I will present some rebuttals to the proposition's arguments and construct my constructives to prove the insubstantiality of today's motion. I will, hopefully, be able to prove that there is still better system than democracy and thus it is not the best one.DEFINITIONWell, the proposition’s definition of the baseline has been mostly accurate. But, a portion of the definition, I think, has been inaccurate. I will present my rebuttals in this regard in the rebuttal section which is coming later in my speech. Except that, the definition has been well and fine and thus I have no further objections.As I am presenting constitutional monarchy as my system, so it also needs to be defined. A constitutional monarchy is a form of monarchy where the governing powers of the monarch are restricted by the terms of a constitution.[1] Political scientist Vernon Bogdanor, paraphrasing Thomas Macaulay, has defined a constitutional monarch as "a sovereign who reigns but does not rule."[2] In The English Constitution, British political theorist Walter Bagehot identified three main political rights which a constitutional monarch could freely exercise: the right to be consulted, the right to advise, and the right to warn.[3]YARDSTICKI have some objections to object to the proposition’s yardstick section. You have shown some prerequisites of a good or better government which were as follows: (1) Governing its people with its consent.(2) To maximize freedom and civil rights and(3) To protect the people from internal and external threats. I have something to say about the first one. Often, the situation is such like that you have to give up/dedicate smaller things to achieve greater items. This case can also be taken in terms of a country. But, in these regards, the people in general will want the thing that are right up before them, I mean, the smaller thing. So, if a ruler wants the long lasting betterment of his country, he has to go against general will. What a wise ruler understands may not be understood by average people. So, the condition you made as the first one is irrelevant in some cases.Though there are still some other conditions for a better government, you did not mention them. So, I would like to mention some more ones:(1) Increasing efficiency and speed in governmental activities.(2)Implementation and adaptation of policies in a swift time.(3)Bringing about discipline in a great extent in the country and(4)Preventing misuses in federal tasks.Well, they are the main ones. Then, the list can further be expanded from them. However, let us judge if they are mostly present in democracy or in another one. I would like to present CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY as an opposition to your democracy.REBUTTAL OF REBUTTALSIn this section, I am showing some re-rebuttals to the rebuttals you have already presented:01. Rebuttal to RE: Democracy is irrelevantWell, you have wanted proofs behind democracy’s irrelevance in this century. I would like to request you to look forward to example of democratic countries like Pakistan, Thailand, Afghanistan and Bangladesh. Although they are democratic, yet there stability is uncertain. You may say they are South Asian developing countries and there might be a lot of problems. Don’t forget China too. In addition to that, you also may ask for example of developed countries. In countries like even USA or UK, the process of development is often hampered by the feud between the government and the opposition side. We often saw in USA that the budget or other important bills were being unable to be passed in the house only for the argumentative difference between The Democratic Party and The Republicans. In many cases, their activities can be considered nothing but quarrel between two babies. It's a problem of democracy. You said that the great ideas have never accepted so much cheerful and wonderful audience than today. Also, you have not presented any proof whatsoever. Don’t forget, that’s not like that in all the cases. In many countries, free opinion givers are being oppressed by the government. You are, probably, well informed about them.The MDG targets are also achievable in my prescribed constitutional monarchy. Remember, it is constitutional monarchy, not traditional monarchy.REBUTTALS01.RE: Crimes are eradicable only in democracyYou have said something and here is the proof how unrealistic your words were. Look at the countries where there are the most homicides:01. Brazil: MR*-25 Count*-50,10802. India: MR-3.5 Count-43,35503. Nigeria: MR-20.0 Count-33,81704. Mexico:MR-21.5 Count-26,03705. DR Congo: MR-28.3 Count-18,58606. South Africa: MR- 31.0 Count-16,25907. Venezuela: MR-53.7 Count-16,07208. United States: MR-4.7 Count-16,82709. Colombia: MR-30.8 Count-14,67010. Pakistan: MR-7.7 Count-14,846[4]*MR- Murder Rate Count- Murders CountedAs far as I know, they are all democratic countries. So, why is their condition like this? In terms of other crimes, the situation is also like this.Please remember that in democracy, the government has the support of the majority. So, thinking that, it is not impossible for them to interfere in judiciary activities. You may not support it but it is the reality. In the new third world developing countries, we often see this. So, the condition of judicial activities in a democratic country is not completely free of controversy.Remember, as I disclaimed, I am not supporting dictatorship. In my supported constitutional monarchy, the king/queen has so a clear image that it is inconceivable for them to make any interference in judiciary activities.02. RE: Rights in democratic countriesIn most of the cases, it’s true that democratic countries are facing freedom of rights rather than the other ones. Yet, like judicial system, it has some flaws too. If you look at countries like China, Cuba, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, they have democratic system. Yet, their freedom of press is in a very serious situation, as stated in Wikipedia.[5] Even if you look at the case of Libya, the country’s people were in better situation during Gaddafi reign rather than today’s democratic reign. So, all these are the demerits of democracy, you can’t deny the fact.03. RE: So called abstract case for democracyWell, democracy is not the only one/unique system where there is people’s consent. It is also present in systems like aristocracy, constitutional monarchy. Look at UK. Their people have consent with what they are having from their government. In many non-democratic countries of the world, we can see government and people working altogether and having consent with each other's activity.The third condition you stated as a prerequisite for an ideal government is present almost in every system. Because, no ruler will handle his country to the hands of external threats unless he is a foreign conspirator. It does not matter whether he is a democrat or an aristocrat or even dictator.CONSTRUCTIVESIn this round's constructive section, due to character constrain, I will talk about the abstract case of constitutitonal monarchy. Therefore, in the next rounds, I will largely talk about other merits of it and the demerits/negative sides of democracy.MERITS OF CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHYMy abstract case for constitutional monarchyI did state some more prerequisites for a governmental system to be an ideal one which were as follows:(1) Increasing efficiency and speed in governmental activities.(2)Implementation and adaptation of policies in a swift time.(3)Bringing about discipline in a great extent in the country and(4)Preventing misuses in federal tasks.So, let us analyze whether they are present in constitutional monarchy or not.The first one condition isto increase efficiency and speed up the governmental activities. In democracy, there is a great queue of bureaucracy. Often, it is seen that a work needs 1 month of time instead of the supposed 5 days. In many countries, we can see that. We also see that even bribe has to be given to speed up them. It's because in democracy government is dependent on people's vote which include that dishonest official too. But being afraid of missing vote, the government often does not tell them anything. There s another reason that ifa dishonest official is punished, then the other ones may get angry and may not support that government. But in constitutional monarchy, there is nothing such like this. There is a liberal king/queen who has no fear of losing votes. He may punish or suspend any worker at any time. Knowing that, the officials and the workers work swiftly which ultimately brings about swiftness in governmental activities.The second is also indirectly linked up with the first one. In democracy, there are many men, and so, many minds. You will have to consider all their opinions which need a long time. So, on the way of doing a work , you cannot expect spped in the implementation of policy and decisions.But in constitutional monarchy, as I stated before, the king/queen is free to take any wise decision for the country. If an intellect has an idea, he may inform it, no problem with that.In constitutional monarchy, you have discipline. Each and every citizen is much loyal to the ruler and thus they have a great discipline.Prevention of misuses in federal tasks, is apparently related to Condition 01 & 02. When you are taking less time to do a task or take a decision, reasonably the less money is spent.That's all from here.CITATIONS 01. Jerome Blum et al., The European World (1970) 1:267-6802. http://pa.oxfordjournals.org...03. https://en.wikipedia.org...04. http://www.unodc.org...05. http://rsf.org...