Absolutism Vs Democracy

Compare and contrast the theories and practice of absolutism and constitutional monarchy during the 17th century.

Even though the Monarch may get some suggestions from his advisers, the Monarch is the only one who finalizes decisions. Therefore enabling final decisions in an absolute monarchy to be made much more quickly. People usually want answers to problems as quickly as possible, and a Monarch can usually make quick decisions as opposed to a government like a democracy. A great example of this in action is that it can sometimes take a long time for a country with a democratic government to decide if they should go to war or not. But a Monarch theoretically would not have to spend a long time deciding if his country should attack.

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

A form of government ruled by one person whose authority is not restricted by law or governing bodies is absolutism. It is arguable if this form of government can truly be successful due to its impression left throughout the course of history. Justification of absolutism by Thomas Hobbes, Jacques Benigne Bossuet, and analysis of Louis XIV rule reveal why absolutism in ineffective. Due to its removal of self-authority, vulnerability to a power, and the possibility of weakening a country make absolutism inefficient.

Many rulers used absolutism in their countries. They believed rulers should have complete control over the country. Prince Machiavelli believed the best way to rule was to be feared and thought that the only way people would listen to him was if he was mean and scary. He thought if he was nice and loved then they would not fear him and end up taking advantage of him. (doc1) King James also believed absolutism was the way to go. He believed in divine right and that it was the only way to keep the country

-That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed,

     A democracy is a system of government controlled by the people, not by one certain group or individual. In the Declaration of Independence it states that “all men are created equal,” an idea which leads to the concept that all citizens should have the same rights, responsibilities, and influence in the governing of their country. In writing the Declaration of Independence Thomas Jefferson was trying to break his ties with the harsh and non-democratic rule of the British and begin a new, equal society and government for America.

The leader of the semi-nomadic Turks that were around until 1922. He founded the Ottoman Empire in the 13th century.

     Absolutism became the primary form of government for many Europeans in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. It appealed to so many for reasons the same as other governments. “Absolutists contended that social and political harmony would result when subjects obeyed their divinely sanctioned rulers in all aspects“ (Text 594). Absolutists rulers felt God gave them their ability to teach the masses the proper ways to live.

Absolutism places no boundaries on the sovereign’s power. Since most sovereigns saw themselves as God’s lieutenants, they believed that everything that they did was correct. King James states, “for kings are not only God’s lieutenants upon earth…God hath power to create and destroy,… And the like power have kings.” (Document 2) They believed that they were able to enslave, kill, or evict anyone at their leisure. However, constitutionalism is the exact opposite. While the sovereign does have power, they still have to properly recognize and uphold the people’s natural rights, “When legislators try to destroy or take away the property of the people, or try to reduce them to slavery, they put themselves into a state of war with the people who can then refuse to obey laws.” (Document 5) The government doesn’t have all the power and have to adhere to the people or else they will revolt. This was also a major discrepancy between the two governments. As the quote states above, the people are allowed to revolt if the government infringes on their natural rights. However, it is believed that since the sovereign in an absolutism has everyone’s best interest in mind, revolt would be selfish as you

Absolutism pertains to an absolutist state, where all power, or sovereignty is made in the ruler. These rulers claimed to have divine right, meaning they ruled by the grace of God and were responsible only to God. However, these absolute monarchs respected the basic laws of the land. They controlled interest groups within their territories and created bureaucracies as well, in which the offices held public/state positions, directing the economy to the benefit of the king. Absolute monarchs also kept

Absolutism started in the seventeenth century. The absolute monarchs main goal was to control every aspect of society. Usually the absolute monarchs ruled without any limitations to their authority. The most effective form of government in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries is absolutism because men are selfish, the kings and princes were chosen by god, and the king has certain rights that no other person has.

For over 5,000 years of human civilization, there has always been a need for societal structure and stability. People developed governments in order to guarantee that structure and stability are present within the region. While there are various forms of government, some are more effective than others. Yet the effectiveness of that form of government is mostly dictated by the time period it is being used in. Even though democracy is widely regarded as the best form of government in the 21st century, the same cannot be said for the 17th and 18th centuries. The most effective form of government for the 17th and 18th centuries in Europe is absolutism because of the power of religious unity, the importance of fear, and the focus of the overall well-being of the state.

A democracy is when the common people are considered as the primary source of political power. Although democracy and absolutism had advantages and disadvantages, democracy was a more effective type of government for it limited royal power and protected the rights of the people socially, politically, and economically. Throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, tension arose between the two different types of governments, the democracy and absolute monarchs.

2. In democracy three state powers(in most cases) exist as a checks and balances system, these being the judicial, executive and legislative as it was enunciated in Montesquieu ’s Of the Spirit of law. And they are independent, complementary and with no relation of subordination. Whereas in an absolute monarchy, the