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 Each form has its advantages and its disadvantages but Some ways have been outdated and improved upon, which begs the question, which one is better?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.
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.
During the fifteenth to nineteenth century, there were several leaders from different countries, who abused their powers as absolute monarchs. The misuse of their powers led to downfall of their country. An example of an absolute monarch who abused their powers is Louis XIV. He is a very important figure in history because he would make decisions and everyone would be under his power and control. For example, he controlled all the taxations, military power and justice. Furthermore, he did not set a list of defined rules. What this meant was that whatever he wanted to do at the time became the law and he could change it anytime. Louis built the Palace of Versailles which demonstrated the wealth and power of the monarch. The expenses for building the palace ended up with peasants unable to pay the increased tax. The country was enraged, countless suffered from poverty and famine. The proposition of a revolution was spread and Louis divine rights were being stripped away. The inevitable failure of absolute monarchy led to the uprising of the Reign of Terror and Napoleon Bonaparte. After the beheading of the King and Queen, France ...
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.
Democracy is designed to concentrate the power of government in the hands of the people and protect against autocracy and oligarchy. It presupposes societies need a modicum of rule, as they cannot function if there is anarchy. In this way, democracy is a virtue, or a mean between two vices. However, democracy has a sliding scale, the metric of which is the citizens who rule it. Citizens ultimately dictate the laws to be agreed upon, codified and enacted. These laws not only govern behavior and maintain order, but also provide citizens with a mechanism to seek relief through the courts should they be aggrieved.
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.
Throughout the course of history, mankind has been recorded to corrupt itself. Men have grown tired of simply surviving; they have had to take and conquer others. Absolute monarchies control wealth, land, and even lives of men. The conditions of the people were solely dependent on the conditions of the one who was in power in that particular place and time. History has proven that most men rule unwisely in their kingdoms. To avoid tyrannical rule, some make an attempt to set up a government in which the people ruled themselves. This form of government is called a democracy, or “rule of the people.” History has also revealed through the Greeks and the French Revolution, that a democracy that gives complete power to the people, “absolute democracy”, is nothing more than a short prelude to tyranny.
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 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.
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 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?”
Democracy, in its truest sense, does not exist. There is no political authority currently existing where every person contributes an equal amount to the decision-making process of the authority’s directives. The election of officials and representatives by the populace does not, in itself, automatically result in the most democratic and widely accepted directives being enacted. However, this does not decrease the political power of the authorities, nor does it limit their practical power over their jurisdictions.