Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
(world history) absolute monarchy
Practice of constitutional monarchy
Monarchy government
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: (world history) absolute monarchy
Every country has their own form of government; through this whole semester we discussed an absolute monarchy, a constitutional monarchy, and a republic. They each have their similarities and differences. This being said, a system in which a ruler holds total power over its people is an absolute monarchy. It consists of one ruler that could make laws, levy taxes, administer justice, control officials, and determine foreign policy. An absolute monarch, Philip II, ruled Spain for 42 years. He had total and complete control over all aspects of running the nation. In contrast, a constitutional monarchy is a system of governing through heredity leadership, headed by a king/queen or both. The power of the monarch is restrained by a parliament.
The Glorious Revolution of 1688 led to the constitutional monarchy in England. Queen Mary, the daughter of James II, and her husband William of Orange, established the English Bill of Rights. The English Bill of Rights settled all major issues between the King and Parliament, thus establishing a constitutional monarchy in England for the first time. Another form of government is a republic. A country, which is organized with a form in which power resides in elected individuals representing the citizen body and government leaders exercise power according to the rule of law, is a republic. An example of a republic is the United States. The United States became a republic on June 21, 1788, when the constitution was ratified. There was no government set in place in 1788, but in 1789 a government was created and still stands today. Each of these forms of governments has similarities and differences. An absolute monarchy, constitutional monarchy, and a republic are similar because they all have leaders. An absolute monarchy differs from a constitutional monarchy and a republic, because the ruler has complete power. Whereas, a constitutional monarchy and a republic have a parliament or elected officials coming up with rule, instead of everything being ordered around by the ruler in place.
During the 16th and 17th centuries a new type of ruling emerged as a result of unorganized government called royal absolutism. This type of government was seen in many European countries including France and Russia where King Louis XIV and Peter the Great ruled respectively. Both had ways of ruling that were similar to each other and different to each other. Politically, economically and socially both Louis XIV and Peter the Great were similar to and different from how they ruled and what their reign resulted.
Almost any place that you live in, you will find that there is some sort of government set up there. A government is basically a form of system of rule, by which state, community, etc. is governed by. Although, most places do have a government set up, the type of government in which they have differ from each place. One of the most popular forms of government that is used often today would be democracy; this means that the government is ruled by the people. Monarchy is another one that you should be aware of because it is one of the oldest forms of government and it is still used today in some places. A monarchy government consists of the rule
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.
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.
Since the beginning of the sixteenth century, Western Europe experienced multiple types of rulers which then led to the belief that rulers should be a combination of leadership types. Some rulers were strong, some weak, and some were considered to rule as tyrants. All of these were versions of absolutism which gave kings absolute power over their provinces and countries. Over time kings began to believe that their supreme power was given to them by God in a belief known as Divine Right. The people looked at Divine Right kings as those who would incorporate God’s will into their politics; however, many kings took this power and turned it into tyrannical opportunities. By the time the seventeenth century came around, kings continued to believe in Divine Right and absolute power which continued to create many tyrannical kings and caused many of the people to begin to fight the king’s power by granting some rights to the people. These uprisings led to more people believing that they have certain rights that the king cannot ignore. By the eighteenth century, many rulers started to combine their absolute power with including the newly granted rights of the people. The belief also shifted from Divine Right to one that the people gave the king his power which led to kings like Frederick II of Prussia to rule with his people’s interests in mind.
There is a fundamental difference between a democracy and a republic as it concerned the political entitlement of the citizenry. The citizens of a republic do not participate directly with governmental affairs. The citizens of a republic can however have a say in who does participate. The Roman republic has two prefect systems to prevent dictatorship which didn’t work.
Between 1787 and 1791 the Framers of the US Constitution established a system of government upon principles that had been discussed and partially implemented in many countries over the course of several centuries, but never before in such a pure and complete design, which we call a constitutional republic. Since then, the design has often been imitated, but important principles have often been ignored in those imitations, with the result that their governments fall short of being true republics or truly constitutional. The Framers of the Constitution tried very hard to design a system that would not allow any one person or group within the government to gain too much power. Personally, I think they succeeded. In order to guard against what one of the Founding Fathers called an "excess of democracy," the Constitution was built with many ways to limit the government's power. Among these methods were separating the three branches, splitting the legislature so laws are carefully considered, and requiring members of Congress to meet certain criteria to qualify for office. The Founders did leave a few problems along with their system.
The idea that a monarchy is the ideal form of government is a fallacy. Al-Farabi and Aquinas’ ideas about government are wrong, and are filled with irreparable holes. In modern times, the idea of a monarchy has become counter-intuitive and counter-productive. A democratic republic paired with an educated and empowered middle-class is the solution to the quandary of how to create the perfect government. While the ideas of the Arabic philosophers are interesting, there ideas on the perfection of monocratic rule are outdated by both new technology and new ideas
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.
Within parliamentary systems, the government i.e. the legislature consist of the political party with the most popularly elected Members of Parliament (MPs) in the main legislative parliament e.g. the House of Commons in the United Kingdom. The Prime Minister is appointed by the party to lead as the executive decision-maker, and the legislature work to support and carry out their will (Fish, 2006). In presidential systems, the President is directly elected with the support of their political party, with the legislative being separately elected and, in the case of the United States, being made up of representatives from different states (BIIP, 2004). This essay will provide examples to suggest that Presidents are generally more powerful than Prime Ministers. As two of the oldest forms of parliamentary and presidential governments (Mainwaring and Shugart, 1997), the United Kingdom and the United States will be the main focus of this essay, but other parliamentary and presidential countries will be mentioned.
The United Kingdom is formally called “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.” Government in the United Kingdom is considered to be Parliamentary. Although it is parliamentary, it is also described as being “majoritarian.” Parliament in the UK works a little different than the United States; the people of the U.S. are allowed to elect their president. In the parliamentary system the people elect who will be in the legislature, and the legislature then selects who the next prime minister will be. Then, once the prime minister is selected he choses members of the cabinet. This system creates a quick and easy political decision-making by popular majority. In this essay we will discuss the strengths and limitations the majoritarian government of the UK. One of the strengths of majoritarian government is perhaps that it is the fastest to pass or veto legislation, however there are limitations or weaknesses also like it lacks checks and balances from the House of Lords, and the disadvantage that the smaller parties have when it comes to elections, and not having a set calendar date for elections.
England’s government also has a few similarities with ours. Even though there government is a monarchy and ours is a republic. Their current leader is Queen Elizabeth II. The Queen of England is more of a symbol than a ruler. The actual ruler is a cabinet of people. The head of the cabinet is the Prime Minister. England also has a law making body, which passes all the laws. They are like our congress. The capital of England is London and the government buildings are located in a region of London call Westminster.