Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Democracy in Europe 17th and 18th century
The rise of absolute monarchs
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Democracy in Europe 17th and 18th century
Absolutism and Democracy Absolute monarchy (Absolutism), it is a form of monarchy in which a single ruler has supreme authority and it is not restricted by any written laws or customs. An example of absolutism monarchy is French King Louis XIV, Russian Tsar Peter the Great, or English King Henry VIII. Democracy is a system of government by elected representatives or officials. Example of democracy is the United States. These type of government exist in the 17th and 18th century in Europe. So the question is, which type of government was considered the most effective in Europe? In my opinion, I believe that absolutism was the most effective in Europe. In "Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince, 1513" (Document 1), Niccolo believed that the prince should
According to the text book, an absolute monarch is a king or queen who has unlimited power and seeks to control all aspects of society (McDougall little, 1045). In more simple terms, it is a ruler who can do just about anything without having to get permission from anyone, or having to worry about the repercussions. This was a trend that started in the 1600’s by European leaders who were rich, and didn’t like to be told what to do. These conflicts arose with the States-General in France, or Parliament in England who had substantial control. The first countries to have absolute rulers were the traditionally strong countries, such as England, Spain, and of course Louis XIV’s France.
During the Age of Absolutism, views of how government should have been run were drastically different that the views of Enlightenment thinkers. The fundamental difference between these two views of government – absolutism and Enlightenment – was that, in an absolute view of government, it stated that it should be run by a monarch – such as a king or a queen – and that he or she should have complete and unquestionable authority over everything, whereas the Enlightenment resulted in the development of new ideas, many of which criticized absolute monarchies, such as the idea that the fundamental function of government was to protect it's people's rights. The Enlightenment thinkers all had different ideas, and all to varying degrees, but the main theme is that all of their ideas criticized absolutism (except for Hobbes) and resulted in the gradual rejection of it.
In today’s world, there are several types of governments that control their countries. There are democracies, dictatorships, republics, monarchies etc. Absolute monarchy was a very common form of government centuries ago. Throughout this time period, many leaders, dictators, monarchs made mistakes that the government looks at today. The abuse and misuse of power by absolute monarchs inexorably led to the rise of modern democracy. This is shown through leaders abusing their powers as absolute monarchs, the unreliability of monarchy, and corrupt governments.
Absolutism and Constitutionalism are two ways in which a government operates. For starters, Absolutism sis the practice of unlimited authority and in reality, complete sovereignty that falls in the hands of a single individual. In the 17th century, this “individual” would be a dictator or perhaps a monarch. In layman’s term, absolutism is simply when there is one leader who is essentially untouchable. The dictator answers to no one and is not able to be challenged by another agency. For example, in modern day, a government ruled with an absolutism view would be untouchable in regards to the CIA, FBI, and the likes. On the contrary, constitutionalism is quite the opposite. Under this form of control, the Government issues limitations; think checks and balances.
Kyi Suu San Aung. "The Quest of Democracy." Reading The World: Ideas That Matter, edited
In the 1600’s and 1700’s Europe had much going on when it came to government. France along with Russia had absolute monarchs who had a vast amount of power and wealth. However England was doing the opposite by trying to limit royal power, they also protected the rights of some of their people. No government is perfect though, seeing as there are advantages and disadvantages to both absolutism and democracy. Nonetheless, the 17th and 18th century enlightened European nations would be most successful with a democracy. The freedoms of people, which many well-like philosophe of this time expanded upon, would be protected in this type of government. Revolts would also be prevented without the use of fear in a democracy. This too allows powers to be spread out, so a head alone doesn’t make all the decisions. Following the enlightenment European nations would strongly benefit from a Democracy compared to Absolutism.
The way that a country is controlled by the government depends on the relationship between the legislative and executive authority. Most democratic nations, today, generally use one of two governmental systems, either a parliamentary system or a presidential system. Today most of Europe prefers to use a parliamentary system, whereas the presidential form of government is preferred in places such as South Korea, South America and the United States. The differences between these two governmental systems are not obvious at first, but there are some key differences. However, neither one of them is necessarily superior to the other.
During the late 17th and early 18th century, many European nations such as France and Russia were absolute monarchies. Even countries such as England had kings who at least attempted to implement absolutism. Indeed the concept of absolutism, where the monarch is the unquestionably highest authority and absolute ruler of every element in the realm, is certainly appealing to any sovereign. However, this unrestricted power was abused, and by the end of the 18th century, absolutism was gone. Absolutism failed because the monarchs' mistreatment of the population caused the people to revolt against their rule and policies. There are many factors which caused this discontent. For one, there was a great loss of human lives. Louis XIV of France participated in four wars, while Peter of Russia ruthlessly executed anyone who stood against his will. Secondly, monarchs attempted to change religious beliefs. This was notable in England where rulers such as James II desired to convert the Anglican nation into Catholicism. Finally, the burden of taxation was more than the population could support. France was brought into huge foreign debt, English kings constantly attempted to raise money, and Peter of Russia increased taxes by 550 percent. These are some of the key reasons why absolutism failed in Europe.
Absolute monarchy or absolutism meant that the sovereign power or ultimate authority in the state rested in the hands of a king who claimed to rule by divine right. But what did sovereignty mean? Late sixteenth century political theorists believed that sovereign power consisted of the authority to make laws, tax, administer justice, control the state's administrative system, and determine foreign policy. These powers made a ruler sovereign.
In this context, an absolute monarch would be revolve around a single leader (usually a king) that would make decisions without the assistance of the aristocracy, such as a the nobility, the parliament, or other organizations that include the interest of wealthy families or government officials. In this case, the king would act alone in deciding the political, economic, and military decisions of the people, which would illustrate the absolute power that is wielded by the individual making the decisions. This governmental interpretation of the term “absolute” defines how a king would rule without the interference or inhibitions of an aristocracy or democratic form of government. Of course, the realization of this type o government can be better explained through the context of the absolute monarchy in France, which was founded in the leadership of king Louis
These governments came in different styles such as a monarchy which was led by a king. Another form of government that was seen among the Greeks was aristocracy in which the polis was ruled by a small group of noble, land owning families. One of the more notable polis of ancient Greek was that of Sparta in which they used the oligarchy as there form of government. This type of government is where the people are ruled by a few powerful people. Finally, there was democracy which means “rule of the people” (The Legacy of Ancient Greece and Rome 1-7). This was the government that Athens utilized and helped establish. These varying types of government can be seen throughout governments today, however, it is the government established by the Athenians and their political structure that had a greater impact on the west than that of its Greek polis counterparts.
Constitutional Democracy The basic premise of a constitutional democracy is that government has rules and all of the people have voices. Through free and fair elections, we elect candidates to represent us. The Constitution of the United States guarantees us the right to do this, and to live democratically. The framers attacked tyrannical government and advanced the following ideas: that government comes from below, not from above, and that it derives its powers from the consent of the governed; that men have certain natural, inalienable rights; that it is wise and feasible to distribute and balance powers within government, giving local powers to local governments, and general powers to the national government; that men are born equal and should be treated as equal before the law.
When you think of government systems that have been prominent in historical societies and even now in modern day, two that have been developed and used very frequently are governments that have absolute control and ones that’s are under democratic rule. They are both very different from each other. “In the absolutist state, sovereignty is embodied in the person of the ruler. Absolute kings claimed to rule by divine right, meaning they were responsible to God alone.” (Mckay) Which basically says that in absolutism the monarch of the people has complete and absolute control over them. “…Our form of government does not enter into rivalry with the institutions of others. We do not copy our neighbors, but are an example to them. It is true that
There are many different ways to organize a central government (Melina para 1). A democracy is a form of government where the people have the power to elect the leaders, like in the current United States of America (Melina para 11). A communist government is where one party runs the whole government with a stern hand, like in present day Russia (Melina para 6). Both of these kinds of governments have huge differences in how they operate (Melina para 1). These are main government systems today; however, during the seventeenth century, there was a different kind of government that was enacted (Spielvogel 444). Absolutism was one of the governments during this developing period; absolutism is the type of government where power is in the hand of one king and he rules by divine right (Spielvogel 444). In simplest terms, the king has all the power of the nation resting in his hands (Spielvogel 444). France, during the seventeenth century was seen to be ran by an absolute monarchy (Spielvogel 444).