Absolute Rulers Vs. Constitutional Government

As stated in the prompt, the two modes of rule are absolute rulers and a constitutional government. Absolute rulers act as monarchs who feel they have sole responsibility for the outcome of their people. At the end of the day, it's what they say or the highway. No one can overpower their decision because it was their "divine right" (they were chosen by God himself to rule). On the other hand, constitutional government was pretty much the opposite. A constitutional government gives balance between authority of the government (previous monarchs or people in power appointed by the monarch) and rights of the subjects It took the some power out of the king or ruler's hands and gave the people the power, or their was a group of people, such as a

The wanted to sign treaties with other powerful states, organize marriage alliances, defeating internal competition, and continuing their policies and systems of rule. The subjects of their state's needs came after all of the previously stated. With a constitutional government being so new to society, states and empires were all-around free to experiment with the type of governmental system they were trying to build. It would be the dawn of a new age for not only their country but for the world. With that being said, of course they wanted to get it right. For some countries like the Netherlands and England, they were almost, in a sense, forced from feudalism and into constitutional government. This was a result of a rise in their middle classes and rapid development of commerce. The country I chose to describe was the 17th century Dutch Republic or The Republic of the United Provinces of the Netherlands. In this time period, seven provinces (states) of the Netherlands came together and created the United provinces. This led to Phillip III of Spain signing the Peace Treaty of Westphalia, which gave the dutch independence and ended the European wars of