Login/Sign Up




Is it time for countries to finnish with Monarchies altogether?
Places


Nepal 'to scrap' royal allowance
Nepal's government has decided to stop paying all allowances to King Gyanendra and other senior royals...
vancam
Jul 11, 2007
7 votes
4 debaters
4
3
2
1


+ Add Argument

2
Yes


dgreb
Jul 11, 2007
1 convinced
Rebuttal
The concept of monarchy is undemocratic. If the monarch retains any significant political powers (as they do in Belgium and the U.K. for example) these are unjustifiable. Why should the opinion of just one person, in office purely by accident of birth, be able to influence the outcome of elections or of political decision-making (e.g. the U.K. and Belgium where the monarch has to sign legislation before it becomes law)

The concept of monarchy is also inegalitarian. Even if the monarchy retains little or no political power, its presence sustains the traditional class system, sending out a message that who you are born matters more than what you make of yourself.

The costs of monarchy are unjustifiable. Typically monarchs and their immediate family receive substantial amounts of money from the state to maintain luxurious lifestyles, complete with servants, expensive holidays and hobbies. The state also spends a great deal to maintain and run palaces and other royal residences, which are seldom accessible to the general public who support them through their taxes. Security costs are also very high.

Royal families have become national embarrassments. In an age of mass-media monarchies are no longer able to maintain the mystique which once set them apart from the common man. Instead kings, queens, princes and princesses are revealed to be mortal, fallible and sometimes foolish creatures. As their wardrobes, squabbles and failing marriages have become constant sources of media scrutiny.


 
+ Add Argument

5
No


henthorn
Jul 11, 2007
4 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: dgreb Show

"the U.K. and Belgium where the monarch has to sign legislation before it becomes law"

It's not any sort of political power. There are in fact laws in place that require the Queen to sign any bill that is passed by Parliament, or be removed from office. A ceremonial figurehead is all the Queen is, there is no, and I mean no, political power involved.

"The costs of monarchy are unjustifiable"

The money taken from tourism due to the Royals alone is more than double the amount taxpayers shell out to keep them around. They're an attraction worth investing in, and their removal would spell disaster for a huge portion of the UK's tourism industry.

"constant sources of media scrutiny"

So? They're not important or powerful, they bring in lots of tourist money, and are the friendly ambassadors of the nation that represent no political threat or agenda. Is it so wrong that the media makes a bit of cash out of them too?

 
vancam
Jul 11, 2007
3 convinced
Rebuttal
The monarchy of a country can help the people of that country have an identity with themselves and their ancestors.

Monacrchies can be used for a lot of good in the world through charities and bringing the media spotlight on causes that might otherwise go unheard.

They can also be a big tourist attraction benefitting a country financial from travellers who wish to see some of the historical sites that helped shaped the world.

 
supremebeing
Jul 11, 2007
2 convinced
Rebuttal
I agree with VanCam 100%. Just look at how much the absolute monarchy here in the United States has benefited not only US citizens, but the entire planet!

 


Use these tags to find similiar debates

UK