Pros And Cons Of Absolutism

Absolutism is arguably a great or terrible system. According to Merriam Webster absolutism is “government by an absolute ruler or authority”. This power held within one supreme/absolute ruler is so great that there are many consequences and positives (according to defenders of absolutism). Merriam Webster also states that constitutionalism is “regulated by or ruling according to a constitution”. This is far different from an absolutist government, but it has its similarities. Through the comparing and contrasting of views by defenders of absolutism and those of John Locke, it will allow for a greater understanding of the purpose and the very nature of each system of government.
The views of absolutism by defenders and views of constitutionalism by John Locke are different because their natures are

complete polar opposites of each other. In a constitution, as described by locke, there are many laws that prohibit the central government and existence of constitutionalism is based on the sovereignty of the people. With absolutism, according to its defenders, is arbitrary in any law it creates. Such as a tax could be forced upon the people at any given cost. This shows the very nature absolutism is through the monarchy and, the opposite (constitutionalism), is based on the limited power of Government through sets of rules. Moreover, the purpose of absolutist government is to rule with force (or divine right) which gives them absolute power over ones people. This differed from John Locke’s idea of the constitutional government because its purpose was to work for the people and through the consent of the people which evens out the “playing field” of power.
Even though there are many big differences, there are also similarities between the two systems.

They both have limitation and a certain amount of power given to the leader. The nature of constitutionalism is based on limitations, and absolutism has minor similarities. Defenders of Absolutism such as Louis XIV, the divine ruler, had supreme power of the absolutist government, but was still limited on the restraint and fear of God based on his rule. With constitutionalism, limitations are there to keep leaders “in line” and can only be in power with the consent of the people. John locke shows us what “counts” and what doesn’t in the second treatise which gives us the limited government. The purpose is also similar because the purpose is still to keep a centralized government however one is just much more limited than the other based on rules and not morals. The biggest similarity is that the leader still has power. Even if it’s a longer process in a constitution, the leaders still have executive power to a certain extent. The purpose is even more similar in the fact that absolutism and constitutionalism are both used to maximize effectiveness, but in different

ways.
Defenders of Absolutism, and John Locke’s ideas of government are very different. The difference is the basis of constitutionalism success, however they share minor similarities that make them not enormously contrasting from one another. These differences of nature and purposes, shown by defenders of absolutism and John Locke’s second treatise of Government, have made constitutionalism a more favorable system with most the modern world using it. It has proven to be successful while absolutism has proven to be corrupt. Absolutism is a good idea, but only with the perfect person. Someone who could face the problems that all failed absolutism leaders have not. Problems that constitutionalism addresses, such as treating of Man or rules that are created that don’t allow corruption to take place. Overall, both systems are very different, but have a small number of minor similarities that show us that constitutionalism is drastically refined version of Absolutism.