The argument at hand is about being for or against a monarchy and I am against it. I believe a democracy is better because the people are actually involved with the decisions of the government. With a monarchy the monarch could become corrupt with their power and use it for doing bad and to only help themselves. Most monarchs are not always bad and can do good, but one bad one can ruin a whole nation. Even though most monarchs aren’t bad the people should be able to influence the decisions of the government and the country is stuck with a bad monarch.
With a democracy the people take part in the government and vote on decisions being made like a new law or leader according to http://www.ushistory.org/gov/1d.asp . The people actually do have a say in what happens in their government instead of just one absolute ruler. The government is divided into three parts so that one can't become more powerful over the others. People might say because people decide on laws and leaders it will take longer and that is not good. Taking longer can be good because it gives people enough time to think about who or what they are voting for.
…show more content…
I am not saying all kings or queens are corrupt, but one bad one can only care for themselves and can hurt the country's government or economy. When you have a monarchy you are stuck with them really because you can't impeach them and you have to live through their reign until it ends. I agree with Locke because he didn't want an absolute monarchy, but a government with limited power and the government was to protect the people's natural rights. I know that not all monarchs are bad and a lot are good, but with the bad ones they really bring a country down and it will take a long time to fix all of their mistakes after their reign is