Democracy is the best ruling system

FRAMEWORK First and foremost, I would like to kick off my proceedings with some introductory words very much related to this debate. Then, I will carry on showing the insubstantialities to the criterion disputes, presented by my opposition. Eventually, I will provide counter arguments and will give my argumentative opinions, which ultimately will comprise of course, the unrighteousness of democracy. RELATION BETWEEN STATE AND GOVERNMENT IN THIS DEBATE As stated in the baseline instigated by me, it was ruling system, neither directly government nor clearly state. While ruling a country, none of them can be denied. There must be a significant cooperation between the state system and the governmental system. So, even if there is only one addition to traditional democratic system, it will have to be counted as something new. From these words, it is crystal clear to us that today’s debate is neither entirely about government system, nor entirely about state system. So, from this point of view, constitutional monarchy can be presented in this debate. FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY AND DEMOCRACY Although democracy and constitutional monarchy are not exactly polar oppositions, yet they are not also fully compatible. The reason behind that is there is a noticeable difference between these two systems. For the sake of the proposition’s better understanding, I am providing with some differences: Constitutional monarchy features a monarch who functions as the head of state. On the other hand, in a democracy, the head of state is someone elected by members of the parliament. As a system of government, constitutional monarchy separates the Head of State’s ceremonial and official duties from party politics. But in a democracy, these affairs are maintained by the government who are, in fact, a political party and thus have misleads. A constitutional monarchy also provides stability, continuity and a national focus, as the Head of State remains the same even as governments change. But in a democracy, there is no assurance of these things as the Head of State changes in terms.[01] Those are the basic differences between these two systems. Even some of them are very much significant too. So, these two systems indeed can be seen as some opposite. INSUBSTANTIALITIES TO CRITERION DISPUTE Well, both of us have presented some criteria to this debate. Firstly, I am mentioning them and then, I will do the initial discussion. My opposition’s saying to my Criterion 01 & 02 was that they refer to efficiency of government. Well, as an example, we can consider the form of government as system, and the effectiveness as outcome. So, when the system is good, the outcome will be good too. Even if I admit his words, then I will also have to consider one of his criteria from the same perspective. His 3rd criterion was to save people in general from internal and external threats. Whether a ruler is a democrat or a dictator, he will do so, as I said in the previous round. So, this isn't also a relevant criterion. Then, he asked, what the necessity of discipling people is if they do not want to be disciplined. Yes, there is the need, as they are not disciplined. When a work is not done, then you have to do it. Last of all, why criterion 04 would be vague? I gave a description to it. Read it and then you will be able to learn how vague your words are. REBUTTALS OF REBUTTALS01. RE: Constitutional MonarchyI have talked about in the previous phase of my debate. So, no more words on it.02. RE: Refutation of the Abstract CaseYou have claimed example/proof behind my saying. I have got it, there are some countries who are much ahead in corruption ranking, although their democracy ranking is not too high. Singapore is ranked no. 7 country in corruption but, it is a matter of surprise that their ranking in terms of democracy is 73! Then another example, UAE. Their corruption ranking is 20 while in democracy ranking, they are ranked no. 76! Another example , Bhutan. Although their democracy ranking is 74, their corruption ranking is 23![02] For the sake of your better reasoning, I am mentioning these countries just to show the example in general. In case of a very rich European or American country, you will see a good condition as money is everything, whether they are democracy or constitutional monarchy.Well, if your power is unlimited, you may like to do as you wish. Then, things won't be good for others. I am happy that constitutional monarchy has a wise ruler and even then, he has limits. That's exactly why I am supporting this system.INITIAL REBUTTAL01. RE: Crimes eradicable only in democracyExactly, crimes depend on a number of reasons. So, undoubtedly, it was unwise for you to say democracy itself deserves the credit of lessening crime rates.02. RE: Rights in democracyWhat about Pakistan and Sri Lanka? They are democracies. Although the score is not up to the mark, yet they have been having it for years. According to your prescribed inverted "U" formula, the rate of crime as well as right protection would have been less in these countries. But the reality is, it is not less as it was supposed to be. So, eventually, your arguments fall down in this respect.03. RE: Abstract case for democracy still standsWe are not dealing with democracy scores, we are arguing about forms of government. So, being a constitutional monarchy, if UK succeeds to earn a good score in your system "Democracy", where is the problem? Then, why is Pakistan's score only 37.1? They have been enjoying democracy from 1947[03]. So, your answer was not a logical one.CONSTRUCTIVESDEMERITS OF DEMOCRACY1. Quantity rather than Quality: It lays emphasis on quantity as opposed to quality. Every person whether stupid or genius is treated equal. It turns into government by "the ignorant and the unintellectual." Mencken says, "Democracy is based on the assumption that all wisdom rests with inferior four-fifths of mankind"[04], who according to Carlyle are "mostly fools."[05] Decidedly, the intellectuals and wise people are in minority and majority is in the hands of unintellectuals. Democracy thus tends to be a Government of the unintellectuals since in it, votes are counted but not weighed. 2. Inefficiency: It very often breeds inefficiency as the political leaders are more busy with forming political alliances and thereby maintaining their positions rather than looking after the administration. Faguet calls democracy as "cult of incompe­tence."[06] "I do not believe in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." said by Thomas Carlyle.[07] 3. Corruption: It breeds corruption like 'lobby­ing', 'log-rolling', etc. Unhealthy political compromises are made, coalitions are formed throwing all principles to winds thereby. Privileges and power are distributed among the supporters of the regime rather than given to those who deserve. Democracy thus encourages nepotism, jobbery and favouritism. 5. A Government of Opportunists and Self-seekers: In democracy, people who have no principle of their own flourish while genuine persons with good intentions lag behind. Such people are generally election shy and shun the botheration of elections and political maneuverings. 6. Expensive: It is very expensive type of government. Parlia­ments, cabinets, election machinery are all a costly affair and a burden on the tax payer. Millions of dollars are spent on the presidential election in the U.S.A., to take one example. Diagram 01: Cost of US election[08] s://s3.amazonaws.com...; alt="" /> 7. Plutocracy: Freitschke describes democracy as a "corrupt dollar worshipping plutocracy or oligarchy of the rich"[09]. According to Lecky, "democracy neither produces equality nor liberty"[10]. 9. Tyrannical: Democracy leads to majority rule which tyrannizes the minority. It leads to revolutions and mob violence. 10. Dis-education: The opponents of democracy point out that it is a process of dis-education rather than education. It lowers standards, it puts premium on emotion rather than reason, on ignorance rather than intelligence and knowledge. It creates among masses a false sense of equality."It produces a civilization"[11] which Burns describes as "banal, mediocre, or dull"[11]. 11. Curtailment of Liberty: Democracy promotes practices like Mac- Carthyism in the U.S.A. or Preventive Detention Act in India whereby liberty and freedom of the people are completely taken away at the discretion of the executive. The power of the state is used by the party in power to perpetuate its rule rather than for advancement of the people. As President Lowell said, "One grievous failure of democracy in the U.S.A. is the misgovernment of her large cities"[12]. Lacky is of the opinion, "Democracy is opposed to liberty."[12]. THE BASELINE STAYS NEGATED!!!!!!!!!! REFERENCES01. http://www.royal.gov.uk...02. http://www.worldaudit.org...03. http://www.worldstatesmen.org...04. http://www.mencken.org...05. http://www.goodreads.com...06. http://www.gutenberg.org...07. https://mrda.wordpress.com...08. https://www.opensecrets.org...09. http://www.slideshare.net...10. http://docslide.us...11. http://docslide.us...12. https://www.google.com.bd...