<p>Topic: Should monarchy exist?</p>.<p>For:</p>.<p>Akhil Raghuram Iyer</p>.<p>Grade 9, CMR National Public School, Bengaluru, Karnataka </p>.<p>A monarchy is often considered old and outdated nowadays. However, it has numerous merits that can help an economy to progress. </p>.<p>Monarchy completely eliminates the idea of partisanship and creates a sense of unity. As there are no multiple parties, there are no multiple ideologies, unlike a democracy, where this competition leads to factionalism. Decision making is also more fast and efficient. Decisions don’t require bills to be passed, read and signed by the legislative head. </p>.<p>Arguably the most important merit that monarchy has over most democracies is that they are devoid of instability. The country is ensured stability through a single figure being the head of state for a longer tenure. </p>.<p>The monarchies also help to reduce excessive spending and lessen cases of corruption. Since the rulers have generations of wealth, they have no lust for money. </p>.<p>Therefore, we can see that<br />monarchies can be very advantageous to the growth of a country. In successful monarchies like UAE, Saudi Arabia, Brunei and Oman, the country is flourishing and the economy is growing. To conclude, monarchies should continue to exist, and if they exist in the right manner, they have the capacity to overtake democracies. </p>.<p>Against:</p>.<p>Rehan Rehman, 14</p>.<p>Rashtriya Military School, Bengaluru, Karnataka </p>.<p>The term nonarchy applies to states in which supreme authority is vested in the monarch, an individual ruler who functions as the head of state and who achieves his or her position through heredity not by merit or people’s choice which according to me is not a great practice. Handing over the reign of an entire country to a person just as a birth right without even looking for the virtues, aptitudes or the acumen for the same.</p>.<p>I think monarchy is biased We cannot expect a monarch who is appointed without any merits to elect or select people with talent in fact they are bound to give preference to the royals only for any official assignments.</p>.<p>Moreover, monarchs live a lavish lifestyle with huge expenses at the cost of hard earned money of the tax payers which otherwise could have been used for other socially meaningful purposes. People in a monarchy are barred from exercising their freedom of speech and are often silenced to raise their voices against wrong practices and the monarchs. Therefore, I think democracy is better way of running a country.</p>
<p>Topic: Should monarchy exist?</p>.<p>For:</p>.<p>Akhil Raghuram Iyer</p>.<p>Grade 9, CMR National Public School, Bengaluru, Karnataka </p>.<p>A monarchy is often considered old and outdated nowadays. However, it has numerous merits that can help an economy to progress. </p>.<p>Monarchy completely eliminates the idea of partisanship and creates a sense of unity. As there are no multiple parties, there are no multiple ideologies, unlike a democracy, where this competition leads to factionalism. Decision making is also more fast and efficient. Decisions don’t require bills to be passed, read and signed by the legislative head. </p>.<p>Arguably the most important merit that monarchy has over most democracies is that they are devoid of instability. The country is ensured stability through a single figure being the head of state for a longer tenure. </p>.<p>The monarchies also help to reduce excessive spending and lessen cases of corruption. Since the rulers have generations of wealth, they have no lust for money. </p>.<p>Therefore, we can see that<br />monarchies can be very advantageous to the growth of a country. In successful monarchies like UAE, Saudi Arabia, Brunei and Oman, the country is flourishing and the economy is growing. To conclude, monarchies should continue to exist, and if they exist in the right manner, they have the capacity to overtake democracies. </p>.<p>Against:</p>.<p>Rehan Rehman, 14</p>.<p>Rashtriya Military School, Bengaluru, Karnataka </p>.<p>The term nonarchy applies to states in which supreme authority is vested in the monarch, an individual ruler who functions as the head of state and who achieves his or her position through heredity not by merit or people’s choice which according to me is not a great practice. Handing over the reign of an entire country to a person just as a birth right without even looking for the virtues, aptitudes or the acumen for the same.</p>.<p>I think monarchy is biased We cannot expect a monarch who is appointed without any merits to elect or select people with talent in fact they are bound to give preference to the royals only for any official assignments.</p>.<p>Moreover, monarchs live a lavish lifestyle with huge expenses at the cost of hard earned money of the tax payers which otherwise could have been used for other socially meaningful purposes. People in a monarchy are barred from exercising their freedom of speech and are often silenced to raise their voices against wrong practices and the monarchs. Therefore, I think democracy is better way of running a country.</p>
