Absolute Monarchy May Be Better than a Democratic Government

"Difference Between Absolute Monarchy and Constitutional Monarchy." Difference Between.net. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 Mar. 2014. .

nt. Many monarchies, such as Britain and Denmark, are actually governed by parliaments. The first form of this government was founded by Ancient Greece. The ancient greeks had a king or queen that would rule over everyone in the polis. The citizens did not have a say in government and all the choices were left to the government. This kind of government would be great if you had no idea what to do if you had a say in government, but if you did and you weren’t royalty, you would most likely be mistreated and not heard. So this government would be ideal if your people are dumber than sheep and needed to be hearded.

Absolutism and Democracy 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.

Charles I was the second born son to King James I, who had also reigned under a constitutional monarchy, but large disagreement between Parliament and James I led to an essentially absolutist approach to governance. Likewise, Charles I disagreed with the Parliament on many factors. Charles was far from the contemporary model of a figurehead monarchy we see in today’s world, and his political reach extended throughout the English empire, even to the New World. Infact, I claim, he practiced a more absolutist form of monarchy than did the Czars of Russia; he dissolved Parliament three times. This unprecedented power led to (other than corruption) a strict contradiction of the principles of republicanism which most constitutional monarchies agreed on. And while many were in favor of an overlooking Parliament, his unopposed voice led the voyage to the New World as well as the charter for the Massachussets Bay Colony, and he fostered many internal improvements throughout England, which further benifetted the economy. Unfortunately, Charles began to push his limits as a monarch, and many became upset (including New Worlders from Massachussets) to the point of abdicating him and executing him for treason. Nevertheless, his positive effects on society and political rennovations persist in today’s

... Constitutional Monarchy form of government was the solution not only the problems of the moment, but also the overarching issue guiding a nation and ensuring unity of effort.

Monarch’s begun to lose most of their executive power around the 17th century and were becoming gradually subject to the will of Parliament. The loss of a monarch’s power didn’t happen overnight it was the result of years of change which finally accumulated into the constitutional monarchy that we have today. In many ways the monarchs started the very process by which there power would shift by setting up (governmental) agency’s to run things for them and slowly over time limiting the power that nobility possessed and increasing the political power of other parties besides that of the nobles.

In conclusion, misuse of absolute monarchy leads to vicious cycles. Even though monarchs have argued for social benefits, they fail to meet with expectations of commoners. Indeed, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Turbulence in politics and the government led to the development of new philosophies, which ultimately replaced broken ones that favored monarchy. The English Civil War that directly influenced the American Revolution, as well as the French Revolution along with other examples, proves that absolute monarchy inexorably led to the rise of modern democracy.

The government within the monarchical society was populated by the aristocracy. It was they who were depended upon for directing the course of governmental affairs. The controls of all co...

The United Kingdom as one of the remaining monarchies of the world, which head of it, the Queen Elizabeth II, has powers that provide an essential evolution of the country. These powers, are called Royal Prerogative powers. Obviously, British people respect the Royal family and additionally the queen, nevertheless they could have their own beliefs as seen on their references. According to the Royal Prerogative (“RP”), it is definitely the most historically and continuing tradition of Britain. In some situations, circumstances tend to disappear them and replaced them by other recent means. In this essay, it will define the RP and how can preserve the separation of powers. Therefore, it should explain how these powers dying to a democratic environment.

Given the aforementioned factors, it comes as no surprise that the approach adopted by the PJD government coalition and the palace in their interactions with one another is symptomatic of a balance of power deeply tilted to the monarchy’s favor, and illustrates the party’s inability to go beyond the limits of “consensus”. Indeed, for all the heated speeches in which he lambasted the ambient corruption and often targeted some of the figureheads of the Makhzen, Abdelilah Benkiran is so far quite compliant in his tenure as the head of the government. Indeed, as reported by Fouad Abdelmoumni (2013), the king often acted unilaterally in matters otherwise falling under the government’s jurisdiction. For instance, the king reportedly appointed ambassadors to 28 countries, without consulting the newly elected government (Abdelmoumni 2013, 136). A similar scenario took place a few months later, when the king appointed a number of regional governors without the head of government being able to exercise any influence on the matter.