A monarchy is a good thing

Having shown that the ethical issues about monarchy are not so straight forward and are not all bad news, I would like to elaborate on the benefits brought by a monarchy. Matthew Feeney, a British-American writer, once pointed out that, compared to other European nations; Britain, the Netherlands, and the Scandinavian nations have all enjoyed relative political stability. No revolutions, no coups, no dictatorships, no fascism, Nazism or communism. In fact, some of these nations are prospering and extremely free; Sweden was once by The Guardian described as being the most successful society the world has ever seen. He ascribes this to their monarchies: having a monarchy prevents radical or extremist political ideas from taking fruit because the political setting of constitutional monarchies is naturally more conservative. It is this that lies behind the success of the monarchies " political stability. In the UK, the monarchy does absolutely nothing politically. In fact, the Queen is forbidden to make any political statements or recommendations. She is "above" politics, as the phrase goes. In the vast majority of all European monarchies, the monarch yields absolutely no power " the democratically elected head of government has the power. So, in some if not most cases, monarchies do not have any influence on other people"s lives. The events of the last century have shown as that not every monarchy is authoritarian and not every republic is democratic. Thus, your argument that a monarchy has unjustified power is just that: unjustified. Not all monarchies have power, so no monarch has power over many simply because they were born in a royal family. Having now established that a monarchy actually poses no threat to equality in the terms my opponent suggested, I would now like to finish the picture of what benefits a monarchy can bring. The head of state in republics are generally part of a political party. Party politics can get quite awful because politicians who belong to political parties tend to lie more when their reputation in the party is at stake. It is why I sometimes believe that party politics ought not to be the norm. A monarch is the equivalent of an independent; he/she represents the whole nation and not a political party. A constitutional monarch is accountable only to the people, not to any political party. Not only is a monarch neutral and thus more representative, he is also someone who plays a major cultural part of the nation. Having a monarch represents a connection with the past and a preservation of the nation"s past culture and way of life. In a time where an all-consuming monoculture seems to be emerging, this is quite precious. So, when a monarch yields no power yet manages to keep the government and culture stable, no one is affected by the decisions of a non-elected head of state and no one will actually mind the fact that only certain people can be monarchs simply because monarchs do nothing. Without lifting a finger, monarchs can preserve a nation, identity and way of life. In a time when political stability is very appealing, monarchies can only be positive things. In the next round, I will directly combat what my opponent has and will say and I will conclude the debate, as we have agreed before. And I say this to my opponent: while you are still looking through your dictionary, please look up the words "constitutional monarchy". And also, find out the number of people the Queen has had executed in the last few years. You won"t need any fingers to count it.