With that in mind, I believe that the last two monarchs of Naboo have been female, which clearly contradicts your fourth point regarding monarchies being gender discriminative. No, a female rule may not be the 'norm', but I would like to set our own Senator Cerra as another example of a female monarch as Queen of Garos IV.

Monarchy contradicts democracy
Perhaps, but is it not democracy if the people choose it? If people choose to live in a monarchy or a constitutional one is that not democracy by the fact that the people have chosen. Now I would amend this measure and offer that planets whose people wish to change the government are given an election to decide whether or not they wish to change and that there will be no reprisals against anyone voting in favor of change.

Monarchy is ethnic-discrimination
Once again this is not always the case. While some monarchies are set to one race or another it is not always that way as some are often elected. However, once again if the people choose this for themselves then so be it. It should be up to them as after all that is democracy where the people are allowed to decide.

Monarchy is gender-discriminative
Many may be run by men senator, but not all. Volus for instances has had a royal house that while a man is in charge, it has changed through the years going often to the child most qualified to take that monarch's place. Naboo for instance has had multiple female rulers and even Senator Cerra of this very body is a queen of Garos IV.

A monarchy demands deference
I'm sorry but how would this change by this law? Quite frankly it wont change because there will still be someone in charge of the planet and one whom the people are expected to be respectful when addressing.

It is the enemy of merit and aspiration
While one position may be set to a line of succession others can move up into positions of power through their own merits. While I realize not every planet has something similar to a prefecture it is an example of where someone can reach. And of course for those skilled enough there is always the Empire where they could rise up to a position greater than that of a planetary ruler.

It devalues intellect and achievement
While it may be true that monarchs can move through easier it does not mean that their achievements are not real. And often monarchs are elected senator meaning the people have taken into account a persons true achievements when casting their votes for one person or another.

It harms the monarchs themselves
Once again while there may be some systems like this, the majority are not. There are some hereditary monarchs, and I would be willing to venture to say that some are kept apart, but there are a lot of systems where this is not the case, where the monarch is allowed to live their life the way they choose and their heirs are allowed to turn down the throne if they are so inclined to do so.

Monarchs are not impartial, and lack accountability
The monarch of Naboo is elected as I have specified before, and therefore you can't claim its undemocratic because it IS democratic by allowing the people to decide who governs over them and are therefore accountable to the people.
I would also pose to you, which government leader IS impartial? Name one elected official senator who does not have an Agenda, name ONE person in government who does not have their own motives for being there, name ONE who does not have a reason for proposing legislation to try and better the lives of their people.

Monarchy is expensive
So is the cost of any government Senator. For any representative government you still have to pay their salaries and the salaries of their aides and support staff. Even if you replace a monarch with something more democratic, you would STILL have to pay those fees. It will not be changing either way because you call them something else.

Monarchy makes the a world appear 'backwards'
How can a world appear backwards if they have chosen the way they wish to be represented locally. Whether it be by a full democracy or by a constitutional one like Volus, or an elected monarch like Naboo, we should allow planets to choose their own methods of governance which may or may not be right for them.

I will be voting against this because the people of individual planets should be allowed to decide how they are governed.

I agree with Senator Vanden and will be voting against this measure.

I here by cast my vote AGAINST this act.

Doubtlessly harmless and progressive as I'm sure your intentions were, Senator Oriel, I am seeing little here to promote a favourable vote, though I am interested in your response.

I take your point that many monarchies are not in fact true monarchies. Thus I propose the following amendment to the legislation "Worlds which simply use a word such as "King" or "Queen" to simply refer to a directly elected officer unfettered with notions of the "divine right of Kings" shall not be considered monarchs for the purpose of this act.

Time to rebut Senator Star's obnoxious argument she has made in favour of unelected, un asked for officials being allowed to spend from our taxes.

With regard to deference, one may choose to defer to an elected leader. However, one is not compelled by tradition to be are cravenly and debasingly respectful to elected officers as to monarchs. Few if any elected officials would force you to address them in a particular mode.

With regards to aspiration, why should the common Imperial Citizen not be eligible to all offices on a world? Why is this citizen not good enough to be your monarch? Even if a man can aspire to being Sector Governor, why should this mean it is OK to rule him out of being King or Queen?

Regarding Impartiality and Accountability. Firstly, Senators are not Monarchs, they are elected officials, they have every right to a political partiality. An unelected monarch, on the other hand, has little to no right to influence their world's public opinion and less to influence the democratic process. Equally Senators are accountable to their people or Governments, there is oversight for them, rules governing their conduct in office etc.

On expenses, yes an elected head of state would come with a price tag, however, it would be considerably less tha. That of any monarchy as it stands.

I believe in a galaxy where merit, skill and endeavour should determine a mans status, a man should no more have the right to be king because he was born between a pair of royal legs than he does to rob a bank or murder.

Even in a constitutionally constrained role, what right do these unelected scroungers have to lord it over us? The hard working citizens of the Empire. All local public officers who act as a drain on the public purse to this extent must be accountable to the people.

This is not a motion telling worlds how they should govern themselves, it is simply a motion setting out one way in which they should not do so.. It is against the very spirit of the Empire to let birth, rather than merit, decide who rules a world.

But if the people choose that system why tell them they can't decide how they are governed which you ARE doing. By saying you can't do this you are guiding them to what you want them to do, essentially banning them from picking what is right for their worlds. Not all worlds are Vjun senator, we have different needs and different populaces, and if the people of one world decide they want a monarch who is to argue? After all the people have decided. They continue to decide by not petitioning either the Empire or that planet's leadership for change. If the governed consent to the method of governance who is to argue that?

Before we make worlds change their methods of governance I would like the Senator to produce even a fraction of the majorities of planets governed by monarchies protesting how they are being governed.

How about allowing the people of each planet to decide free of any chance of reprisal by government leaders? If the people agree in a referendum held on each planet for no change, then nothing in this act ends up causing changes in a planet's government. However if a planet DOES vote for change then the Empire steps in to ensure that the people are able to change that government? That way improvements come where they are wanted and/or needed and not a blanket policy which doesnt take into account the will of the people

Several points have been made, on both sides, each surprisingly valid. One was made by Senator Vanden, and I have noticed you have not adressed it. If this is how you feel of monarchy at the local level, do you feel this towards Emperor Palpatine?