A country can be run in many different ways; the form of government plays a big hand in determining international affairs and government policies. Ideas change, long ago countries were run by monarchs. Kings and Queens: with absolute power to rule. Now, many countries use democracy as a form of government with three separate branches: executive, legislative, and judicial. Each form has its advantages and its disadvantages but Some ways have been outdated and improved upon, which begs the question, which one is better? Opinions may differ but there are some points that put one side high above the other. Representative democracy is a better form of government than absolute monarchy because the community is actively involved in government actions …show more content…
An article in Britannica Encyclopedia talks about absolutism and how it operates. “The ruling power is not subject to regularized challenge or check by any other agency, be it judicial, legislative, religious, economic, or electoral.” Because of the fact that there is no other parties to check or regulate the main authority. The ruler can make a decision have it instantly be enforced upon the people. There is no restriction to the power of an absolute monarch. More than making changes whenever they please they can rule their people however they want. This could be good but for the most part it resulted in civilizations that feared their ruler. The only way to stop a monarch is to take it down. An example of this can be seen with Louis XIV in France. He was an overpowering authority in the country. He and his wife Marie Antoinette were big spenders and caused the country to always be in extreme debt. Also, because the process they had in place for decision making, the citizens were nearly neglected. This lead to citizen revolution, in this case it is the famous French …show more content…
Citizens don’t play a role in politics so they are left with not much to worry about. Lary Eastland from Washington Times says, “Democracy is messy,” (Eastland). Democracy is slow, democracy is un-accountable, and democracy is messy. This is due to the checks and balances system which provides additional security and power balances but also slows down the decision making process. Democracy is unorganized slow and it also favors the majority in elections and other matters that involve citizen vote. While an absolute monarch may be fast, quick and easy, it doesn't mean that it is quality. Democracy isn't a cheap plug-and-play government system. It requires time and patience for it to operate and run a functional country. Democracy may take longer, and it may feel messy but it's one small cost for decisions that are worthwhile. It allows decisions to be accepted by the people and not forced upon them. This, in turn, lets people live a happy life knowing that the government knows what's it's doing and they don't have to worry about what scary thing the president might do next. Democracy is a compromise, and most of the time a slow one. However, a compromise is superior to a forced
Absolute monarchs ruled though the policy of absolutism. Absolutism declared that the king ruled though divine right with a legitimate claim to sole and uncontested authority (French State Building and Louis XIV). On this basis, Louis XIV of France and Suleiman I of the Ottoman Empire were both absolute monarchs. Each ruler believed that his power belonged to him and him alone due to divine right. They showed their absolute power by living lavishly, increased their power by waging wars, and kept their power by ensuring complete loyalty of their subjects.
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.
Absolutism is defined as a form of government where the monarch rules their land freely without legal opposition. In modern times, when democracy is the ideal, this form of government seems cruel and tyrannical; however, there was an era when it thrived in European politics. During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, absolute rule was justified by the concept of divine right and its improvements to the security and efficiency of a nation.
Absolutism describes a form of monarchical power that is unrestrained by all other institutions, such as churches, legislatures, or social elites. To achieve absolutism one must first promote oneself as being powerful and authoritative, then the individual must take control of anyone who might stand in the way of absolute power. The Palace of Versailles helped King Louis XIV fulfill both of those objectives. Versailles used propaganda by promoting Louis with its grandiosity and generous portraits that all exuded a sense of supremacy. Versailles also helped Louis take control of the nobility by providing enough space to keep them under his watchful eye. The Palace of Versailles supported absolutism during King Louis XIV’s reign through propaganda, and control of nobility.
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.
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.
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.
During the 17th century, the ideals of absolutism is completely condensened in the statement by King Louis XIV “Un roi, un loi, un foi” which translates to “One king, one law, one faith”. As the model for the rest of European powers that wanted to achieve absolutist rule, Louis XIV achieved his goals (of one king, one law, and one faith) very well.
When the term “monarch” is used, the first thing that comes to mind is a bombastic king and queen with unlimited power. The reality is, this is not always true. The definition of a monarch is “someone who is the head of a state government, either in reality or symbolically” (Nederman 2). Such a government is known as a monarchy. A monarch usually either inherits sovereignty by birth or is elected. Either way, a monarch typically rules for life or until abdication. Depending on the type of government in place, the “monarch’s true power varies from one monarchy to another” (Nederman 2). They may be complete tyrants, known as an absolute monarchy. On the other hand, they may be ceremonial heads of state who exercise little or no power and are only a figure head which is known as a constitutional monarchy (Nederman 2). These different types of governments have all been around for about the same amount of time. However, some are more renowned than others.
Charles I and the Establishment of Royal Absolutism. Royal absolutism is a state of government whereby the monarch rules. supreme, with virtually no legislative power placed in other. organisations such as Parliament.
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.
Charles Louis XIV was the leader of France when he was five years old. That is just one example of the hereditary monarchies. European Absolutism was made up of monarchs that had supreme rule over their kingdom. Although it led to some great outcomes, some leaderships were not so great. The period of European Absolutism between the 16th and 17th centuries was a period of tyranny because of the leaders misuse of power and God-like character.
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
In comparing the average citizen in a democratic nation, say the United States, to that of a non-democratic nation, for instance Egypt, it will be found that the citizen in the democratic nation is generally better off – free of persecution, free from fear of the authorities, and free to express his opinions on governmental matters. And while national conflicts occur everywhere, incidents like violent revolts have shown to be more prevalent in nations where citizens are not allowed to choose who governs them. It is slightly paradoxical that democracy, so inherently flawed in theory, can lead to such successful outcomes in practice. The question, then, becomes: “If democracy has so many weaknesses, why does it work?”
Throughout history different types of instrumental regimes have been in tact so civilizations remained structured and cohesive. As humanity advanced, governments obligingly followed. Although there have been hiccups from the ancient times to modern day, one type of government, democracy, has proven to be the most effective and adaptive. As quoted by Winston Churchill, democracy is the best form of government that has existed. This is true because the heart of democracy is reliant, dependent, and thrives on the populaces desires; which gives them the ability for maintaining the right to choose, over time it adjusts and fixes itself to engulf the prominent troubling issues, and people have the right of electing the person they deem appropriate and can denounce them once they no longer appease them. In this paper, the benefits of democracy are outlined, compared to autocratic communism, and finally the flaws of democracy are illustrated.