The British monarchy should be abolished

1. Democracy is the preferable system of government Democracy doesn't guarantee power is in the hands of people, but it is the only form of government apart from true communism that places hands in the power of the people at all. If my opponent is going to argue that communism or anarchism are better systems, then he concedes the debate, since they require the abolition of the monarchy. Minority interests tend to be considered in a modern democracy for two reasons. One is that is that healthy debate, and the fact everyone has a vote, lend themselves to the consideration of many interests. The other, which is associated, is that minorities, and those who wish to see a fair society, come together and lobby the politicians. That people are unsatisfied with politicians does not mean that politicians do not consider the needs of the people. If people become very unsatisfied with politicians, those politicians lose their seats in Parliament. A monarchy does not promote individual autonomy as a democracy does. In a democracy, the individual has a voice. Under a monarchy, an individual is a subject. Democracy encourages the individual to think carefully and rationally about politics, because they can influence it. Under a monarchy, government is at the whim of the sovereign. The individual who thinks carefully and rationally about a government policy under a monarch is idly speculating. If my opponent is to argue against democracy, he has to do more than point out that democracy is imperfect. He needs to show why a monarchy is preferable. 1a. Empirically, democracies avoid some of the terrible conditions seen under other forms of government. In 1958 in China, Mao Zedong's Communist Government began the Great Leap Forward campaign, which led to a disastrous famine killing between 18 and 45 million people.[1][2] Holomodor, a man-made famine in Ukraine under Soviet Communist rule, killed at least 4 million.[3][4] The North Korean famine of the late 90s killed up to 3.5 million people.[5] The famine in Ethiopia in 1973 under the emperor Haile Selassie killed up to 80,000 people.[6] The 1983"85 famine in Ethiopia under Communist rule was responsible for 400,000 deaths.[7] There are other examples. Economist Amartya Sen notes that "no substantial famine has ever occurred in any independent country with a democratic form of government and a relatively free press."[8] 2. A monarchy is directly in opposition to the principles of democracy. A powerless monarch would still receive the unmerited privileges of their position, such as financial privilege and exemption from the law.[9] However, the sovereign is certainly not powerless. My opponent asks if the Freedom of Information Act mentions the Prime Minister. This is irrelevant. The Queen's weekly meetings are exempt from Freedom of Information as they are "communications with the Sovereign". I haven't twisted the source at all, and I expect my opponent to show good conduct and withdraw that remark. My opponent bizarrely asks how we can know that the Queen holds weekly meetings with the Prime Minister if they are private. This is a non-sequitor. 3. The Sovereign has inordinate power. My opponent contends that the Sovereign is powerless. I will quote from the sources directly: "The Queen's duties include opening each new session of Parliament, dissolving Parliament before a general election, and approving Orders and Proclamations through the Privy Council."[10] "As a constitutional monarch, the Sovereign is required to assent to all Bills passed by Parliament"[11] "The Queen as Sovereign is Head of the Armed Forces."[12] "The daily example that You set, mirrored by our courageous armed forces of which You are Commander-in-Chief, is extraordinary."[13] " "The armed forces are loyal, and we live in a democracy, but actually their ultimate authority is the Queen." The prime minister can sack the chief of the defence staff. But only the Queen can approve the appointment of a new one."[14] "The Queen appoints senior judges." "The Queen also exercises the prerogative of mercy, by which the Sovereign may, for example, grant free or conditional pardons or remit penalties."[15] "The Queen alone appoints the Prime Minister, and all other ministers are appointed by her on the Prime Minister's recommendation."[16] Here is a British newspaper article detailing the Queen's ratification of a treaty in 2008: http://www.thesun.co.uk... Let my opponent doubt the UK Sovereign's powers no more. 4. The Privy Council is undemocratic. My opponent missed the part that the Privy Council can pass legislation, bypassing the process of going through the two legislative houses. The Privy Council has been used before to pass controversial legislation. In the 1960s, the Privy Council made an order to evict the 2,000 inhabitants of the 65-island Chagos Archipelago in the Indian Ocean, in preparation for the establishment of joint United States-United Kingdom military base on the largest outlying island Diego Garcia. In 2006 the High Court of Justice found the Privy Council's decision to be unlawful. Sir Sydney Kentridge, QC described the treatment of the Chagossians as "outrageous, unlawful and a breach of accepted moral standards." [17] In 1984, Margaret Thatcher used the Royal Prerogative to ban members of GCHQ, a British intelligence unit, from membership of a union, without consultation.[18] Trade unions pronounced this move as an assault on civil liberties, and there were mass protests. The UN's labour agency criticized a later Conservative government for failing to overturn this legislation.[19] Workers sacked for refusing to give up their union membership were eventually awarded compensation in 2000.[20] 5. The Sovereign has no mandate to rule. "Absolute monarchs rule according to the divine rights of kings, Queen Elizabeth doesn't because she is a constitutional monarch." I ask my opponent, by what mandate does she rule at all? My opponent says that "Monarchy is accepted in Britain, till now, because it's part of its culture." Is that the best defence of monarchy that my opponent can offer? That it is a tradition? Slavery, the oppression of women, and the persecution of homosexuals were also traditions. Importantly, tradition does not constitute a mandate. 6-8 My opponent accidentally submitted their argument before they had finished. I await their further rebuttals in the next round. [1] Grada, Cormac O (2011). Great Leap into Famine. UCD Centre For Economic Research Working Paper Series. p. 9. [2] Dikotter, Frank. Mao's Great Famine: The History of China's Most Devastating Catastrophe, 1958-62. Walker & Company, 2010. p. xii [3] RJ & K Steinberg, The Nature of Hate, Cambridge University Press. pp 67 http://moourl.com... [4] http://moourl.com... [5] Hagard, Stephan and Noland, Marcus (2007). Famine in North Korea: markets, aid and reform. Columbia University Press:New York [6] De Waal, Alexander. Evil Days: Thirty Years of War and Famine in Ethiopia. 1991, p.58 [7] Ibid, p.5 [8] Sen, A., 1999, Development as Freedom, New York: Knopf. pp152 [9] http://moourl.com... [10] http://moourl.com... [11] http://moourl.com... [12] http://moourl.com... [13] http://moourl.com... [14] http://moourl.com... [15] http://www.royal.gov.uk... [16] http://www.findlaw.co.uk... [17] http://news.bbc.co.uk... [18] http://www.bailii.org... [19] http://www.independent.co.uk... [20] http://news.bbc.co.uk...