The Case Against Monarchy

King Charles I of England was the first king in England that tried to have an absolute monarchy. An absolute monarchy is different than the constitutional monarchy of the kings and queens before him were trying to have. An absolute monarchy is where the monarch has all the power and there are no nobles or anyone interfering with the king’s rule; a constitutional monarchy is where the king or queen acts as the Head of State, and the Parliament makes the laws, not the monarch. King Charles’s strong will created conflicts with government, which ended up establishing a civil war & his execution.

I argue for Great Britain to still continue being a Constitutional monarchy. Why you may ask, Well I argue for them because it makes Great Britain running smoothly. If they change it may cause money problems and more. On page 29, it says "According to the rule of male primogeniture, a female could take the throne if there were no direct male heir to fill the seat. In 2013, with the queen's support, a new law was passed to end that rule. As a result, Great Britain may have even more queen in the future." That means Queen Elizabeth II believes that there are going to be queens in the future and I'm sure that nobody doesn't want to not be queen or king of England.

In today’s world, there are currently 44 state/nations that have a monarchy as a government only seven of which have an absolute monarchy that being: Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Andorra, Brunei, Oman, Swaziland, and lastly Vatican City. Out of the 195 countries in the world, only one being the United Arab Emirates is in the top 100 countries for population placing 93rd with a population of about 9,400,000. The other 6 fall far behind with Oman placing 125th with about 4.6 million, Qatar in 139th with about 2.6 million, Swaziland in 151st with about 1.4 million, Brunei in 169th with about 430,000, Andorra in 185th with about 77,000 and in dead last placing at 195th Vatican City with about 840 people. By the numbers, it is quite obvious that the countries are not quite booming

Cheers rise from the jubilant crowd as the crowning moment we’ve all been waiting for finally arrives. Thousands fill the Mall, craning their necks as Queen Elizabeth II steps out onto her balcony, offering a smile to her adoring subjects. Clad in her bedazzled hat, she surveys the scene: a vast sea of British flags, frantic in their support of sixty years on the throne, waving in time to a raucous rendition of God Save the Queen.

In The Republic by Plato, Plato constructed an ideal city where Philosophers would rule. Governed by an aristocratic form of government, it took away some of the most basic rights a normal citizen should deserve, freedom of choice, worship, and assembly were distressed. Though the idea of philosopher kings is good on paper, fundamental flaws of the human kind even described by Plato himself prevent it from being truly successful. The idea of an ideal democratic government like what our founding fathers had envisioned is the most successful and best political form which will ensure individual freedom and keep power struggle to a minimum.

To stabilize the security, historical contexts are always involved to define a large and small society, where the majority are probably gonna use their powers in the small one. However the power must be independent of the majority, otherwise it cannot protect and contain the majority. This way to solve the problem that probably will not work prevailed in all the governments with hereditary and self-appointed representatives. Ruling by these “methods” where with a single blow everything can finish it up in more problems, makes Madison avoid at any cost the term “tyrant”. In any case, the idea is that especially in republics where freedom interested the majority, citizens maybe can wish to call for the monarchy because of stability and security that a strong man can bring to the

In the past, different civilizations have been ruled by different forms of government. The U.S. Democratic Republic, the Roman Republic, and the Athenian Democracy have similar and different functions of how they run their government.

Hobbes, you are adamant in the claim that an absolute monarchy is the best type of government. However, it is clear that too much power in the hands of one individual will lead to corruption. You believe that people are prone to corruption and wrong deeds. With power solely rested on the divine rulers shoulders, should he fail, the nation will crumble. This kind of government could be toppled very easily, and a lack of a stable system set up in place should the monarch die would mean chaos would run rampant throughout the nation.

Absolute monarchy where a ruler man or woman has complete control over the government. Some may view monarchy as a way to keep everything under control, while most individuals view it as a way a ruler can torment his subjects to his bidding. Rulers viewed proper role of an absolute monarchy as a way to unite the people, on the other hand in their subjects perspective it was a cruel rule and the reason for their laborious life.

By far, one of the greatest achievements of humanity as a whole has been the development of democracy. This idea sprouted with the growth of history’s most successful and innovative civilizations; the Greeks and the Romans. Their enormous populations called for a fair and just way of governing. Why not allow control to stem from the populations own members? This logical way of thought is still evident in the world today, especially in the democracy of the United States of America. Upon examination of America’s most valuable texts, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, it becomes very evident that many of these modern ideas can be traced back in time to the beliefs of the Greeks and Romans. The principles of democracy were very successful within these ancient societies, as they are successful within America today.

The extent to which rulers and their subjects viewed the role of an absolute monarch was different. The time of this political issue on absolute monarchies was around the 1600s. There were people for the absolute monarchies, people with their own monarchies and people against monarchies. Each one had there own idea for what the role of the monarchy was the people against it thought it was oppressive the people for it thought it was because people couldn’t rule on their own and the rulers viewed it as a chance to gain more power.

Nowadays , many people now agree that America has never been or nor had the intention to be purely a democratic nation. Looking from various views of scholars, some have classified America as a federal republic or as a constitutional republic. In facts this is true. A true representation of the framers of the

Governance is not constant. Throughout history the use of government has been constantly evolving; from monarchies and dictatorships to constitutional and democratic republics. Some forms of government last longer than others. Many modern political philosophers agree that the key to a successful government is survival, which The United States government seems to agree with; due to the fact that it has lasted significantly longer than other governments. The U.S Government has been surviving for over 200 years now. Modern political philosophers: Machiavelli, Hobbes, and Locke would all agree that the United State’s democracy is a solid form of government. They would also recognize a good amount of their own ideas within the government. The U.S government was developed by incorporating the ideas of the previously mentioned political philosophers as well as others. In this paper, I will be discussing the influence Machiavelli, Hobbes and Locke’s had on the U.S government, in addition to the generation and justification of my own “ideal” form of government.

In Chapter 12 of The Rise of the Western World, the monarchy was checked by the Parliament which eventually led to efficient property rights and economic development. Major reason power of the monarchy was reduced was out of fear that the crown would infringe on property rights; once the monarchy was checked property rights were deemed to be protected by Common Law. England, similar to France and Spain, had an unchecked executive that attempted to infringe on property rights. They were solely concerned with identifying new sources of revenue regardless of the impact on the economy as a whole. The monarchy in England confiscated church lands and allowed special grants and privileges and collected number of fees to increase the revenue flow (146).

Democracy is often referred to as the rule of the many, but Aristotle called this definition incomplete. In his book “Politics”, he explained that in a city if the majorities are aristocrats and if they have political authority, then it is an aristocracy not a democracy. He therefore defined democracy as when “free people have authority and Oligarchy as when the wealthy have it” (1290b). Plato viewed Democracy as a flawed system with too much inefficiency that would make any implementation of a true democracy not worth it. While Aristotle viewed democracy as a system that could work if it is limited to certain restrictions and if it is the regime that best fits the culture of the people to be governed. In this essay it will be argued that Plato’s view on democracy as a flawed system is more prevalent or more compelling if the current political arena around the world is observed.