THBT Monarchies Should be Abolished Worldwide
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 2 votes and 6 points ahead, the winner is ...
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
Burden of proof is shared. No new arguments last round.
Monarchy: undivided rule or absolute sovereignty by a single person.
By nature of the "monarchy" implanted throughout the world, they have lived a life of unnecessary luxury. You don't see other presidents or even dictators running around with golden cars or jewels in their crown. Sadly, the civil list which is paid by hard-working citizens stands at 7.9 million pounds and is unlikely to change any time soon. The growing cost overall is highlighting the greater need for impact shown by the royalty. Even in 2018-2019, it was already at 67 million pounds. For all of these costly operations, we'd have expected some incredible gain. But the royal household is merely using the money for catering, hospitality, and ceremonies. Truly, even CNN reports that "The Sovereign Grant -- an annual lump sum from the government -- is essentially an expense account, covering the costs of travel, security, staff and the upkeep of royal palaces." To overcome this, Con must convincingly show the benefits outweigh the detriments in a way unique to monarchies.
As researcher Atkins notes, the royal crown is encouraged to hold onto extra finances for more power. He argues that land, money, and other resources "sit alongside – and increasingly interact with – the new global wealth elites and their expanding super-prime property portfolios". The concentration of wealth is unfair and seems remarkably similar to a corrupt corporation, rather than a just ruling force. The practices of the monarchy are also biased and unreasonable. Scholar Clancy also analyzes how the British monarchy acts remarkably similar to the corporations that we despise. The annual grant of money is remarkably similar to a performance-based reward. Entrepreneur David McClure remarks how uncannily close it is to "the generous performance-related pay packages granted to business executives by their indulgent boards". The crown had grown incredibly greedy. The Guardian notes over 100 tenants were evicted from their land so that their homes could be sold for profit.
II. Lack of power
It is well known that the Queen of England is merely a figurehead. If we look at the official publications in the parliament, despite her name and respected treatment, her power is nearly none. The paragraph listing her main powers says, "they include the rights to advise, encourage and warn Ministers in private; to appoint the Prime Minister and other Ministers; to assent to legislation; to prorogue or to dissolve Parliament; and (in grave constitutional crisis) to act contrary to or without Ministerial advice." At first, the last clause seems like the monarch may choose to declare an emergency, yet when is the last time they have done this? Practically never. Even in major wars, the minister John Major successfully took part in the gulf war without permission from the Queen. A news article covering this event only notes the persuasion by the cabinet, glossing over the monarchy aspect of England. The Queen is completely useless when it comes to actual rule. Why should we keep some figure that we say has power, and give massive finances to, yet merely showcase her as a figure? Is this not completely demeaning for the Queen? In the end, the unelected and unaccountable monarch seems completely pointless.
III. Divisive Nature
By keeping the monarchy, we are essentially speaking out against democratic values and the ideals of the people. Indeed, looking back on the past, the medieval monarch tradition relates to feudalism, which is unfitting in the modern democratic state. The disparity between the poor and the rich could never be bridged, and most people had little say in the way of the leaders. One common argument for keeping the monarch is to respect the past culture and the quirks that make Britain what it is today. But by refusing to see the mistakes in the leaders, we are stuck in the past and cannot learn from our mistakes. Why does the monarchy deserve to have their title? They were merely lucky to be born to inherit the title. By nature of the way of the power of people, it seems clear that the monarchy system is absurd. There is very little way to even remove them if the public sees them unfit, unlike the US's impeachment system at the very least keeping the president in check.
Not only is the monarchy politically divisive, but it also socially divides people. The very same Clancy from Arg I notes similarities to businesses sees that the monarchy fails to treat its workers fairly. The bias and choice of workers are unacceptable: "While the senior staff is typically headhunted and often employed without a formal interview (Arbiter, 2014; Hoey, 2003; Somerset, 1984), lower-level staff must complete an application form, undertake an interview, and sometimes attend an Assessment Day (Brookes, 2015)". The encouragement of landowners and white people having high status and power furthers inequality.
It is simply immoral to keep the monarch running, especially if we "respect history" as Britain monarchy fans tell us to. It is precisely because the past represents Britain's mistakes that we should deny the monarchy. In Clancy's final point in her article, Britain had countless unacceptable acts. Even from centuries ago, "the British Empire implemented violent regimes of genocide, famine, enslavement, indentured labor, imprisonment and torture". All of this was for personal gain. The exploitation of people was evident in the past, and it remains in the present. The "Koh-i-noon", the famous diamond stolen from India for coronation prove the corruption in the monarchy. And while the commonwealth attempts to uphold laws, the states are easily able to override them. For example, there is no discrimination allowed, yet homosexuality is banned in some member states. The royal family is going above and beyond their given powers and responsibilities. They have even been involved in an arms trade, highlighting the fact that they are merely a corporation in disguise.
the royals have no direct oversight role in the crown estate’s dealings