Absolute monarchy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
Absolute monarchy is a monarchical form of government where the monarch has the power to rule his or her land or country and its citizens freely, with no laws or legally-organized direct opposition in force. Although some religious authority may be able to discourage the monarch from some acts and the sovereign is expected to act according to custom, in an absolute monarchy there is no constitution or body of law above what is decreed by the sovereign (king or queen). As a theory of civics, absolute monarchy puts total trust in well-bred and well-trained monarchs raised for the role from birth.
In theory, an absolute monarch has total power over his or her people and land, including the aristocracy and sometimes the clergy (see caesaropapism). In practice, absolute monarchs have often found their power limited.
Some monarchies have powerless or symbolic parliaments and other governmental bodies that the monarch can alter or dissolve at will. Despite effectively being absolute monarchies, they are technically constitutional monarchies due to the existence of a constitution and national canon of law.
Although six absolute monarchies still exist (Vatican City, Saudi Arabia, Swaziland, Oman, Brunei, and Bhutan), the popularity of the notion of absolute monarchy declined substantially after the French Revolution and American Revolution, which promoted theories of government based on popular sovereignty. Most remaining absolute monarchies were limited or overthrown after these revolutions.
Contents |
[edit] Theories and history
The theory of absolute monarchy developed in the late Middle Ages from feudalism during which monarchs were still very much first among equals among the nobility. With the creation of centralized administrations and standing armies backed by expensive artillery, the power of the monarch gradually increased relative to the nobles, and from this was created the theory of absolute monarchy.
[edit] Divine rights
Early Absolutists advocated the theory of Divine Right of Kings to justify their position. In the 16th century, monarchs took advantage of the clergy's weakness during the Reformation to impose their will. They declared to have the ability to decide the religion of their subjects. Henry VIII of England seized the property of the Catholic church while France claimed "Gallican liberties". These new monarchs claimed to be responsible solely to God. In response to the political chaos of the Reformation, political and theorists such as Jean Bodin, developed a sophisticated theory of sovereignty, which asserted that the king alone could arbitrate power. They attempted to eliminate or marginalize customs, institutions, and laws that held their predecessors in check. They believed that God gave them the right to supreme rule and sovereignty over their land. Those that claimed to have the divine right of kings often ruled in an unfair and egotistical manner, much like a modern dictator, and some were overthrown. One of the most famous examples of a monarch claiming his divine right to rule was Louis XIV of France.
[edit] Thomas Hobbes
Hobbes theorized that all the people should invest their power and rights in a "sovereign", in what was a seminal work of social contract theory, Leviathan. Without a sovereign, man lived in a state of nature which was governed by the passions of man, which manifested themselves in an all-against-all state of war; life in this state of nature was, for Hobbes, "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short". Through contract, each individual would give up his natural rights in order to be under the protection of the sovereign, who would secure the peace and defense of each individual. By surrendering one's rights to the sovereign, one gave up any right to rebel, and indeed, could not logically rebel, as the individual was a constituent part of the sovereign, and one's rights could not be separated from it. The sovereign, thus, by definition only acted in the interest of the subject. The contract could only be broken when the sovereign could no longer provide for the peace and defense of the subject; without its raison d'être, the sovereign simply ceased to exist; man reverted to the state of nature until a new contract could be made.
While the "sovereign" is assumed to always be a monarch, it merely indicates an absolute government, which could take the form of a republic or even a democracy. Hobbes himself favored a hereditary monarch for reasons of stability.
The leviathan state, and most importantly the absolute monarchy, would later be criticized by John Locke in the Two Treatises of Government. Locke's conception of the state of nature vastly differed from Hobbes, as did his conclusion on the rights of the governed. Despite these differences, both works were later viewed by some scholars (most notably C. B. Macpherson) as seminal examples of possessive individualism, with the function of the state being to provide a secure environment in which individuals can enjoy property rights.
[edit] Enlightened despotism
During the Enlightenment, the theory of absolute monarchy was supported by many French philosophes as a form of enlightened despotism. The philosophers argued that only an enlightened monarch can introduce progressive reforms to curtail feudalism and reactionary clergy. However, it must be pointed out that while Louis XV and Louis XVI were absolute monarchs in theory, they had to contend with many private interests, some of which opposed reforms, such as the great nobility and the parlements. Enlightened despotism was discredited with the fall of Napoleon.
[edit] Historical examples
One of the best-known historical examples of an absolute monarch was Louis XIV of France (as stated above - see "divine rights"). His famous statement, L'état, c'est moi (I am the state), summarises the fundamental principle of absolute monarchy (sovereignty being vested in one individual). Although often criticised for his extravagance (his great legacy is the huge Palace of Versailles), he reigned over France for a long period, and some historians consider him a successful absolute monarch. More recently, revisionist historians have questioned whether Louis' reign should be considered 'absolute', given the reality of the balance of power between the monarch and the nobility.[1]
Until 1905, the Tsars of Russia also governed as absolute monarchs. Peter the Great reduced the power of the nobility and strengthened the central power of the Tsar, establishing a bureaucracy and a police state. This tradition of absolutism was built on by Catherine the Great and other later Tsars. Although Alexander II made some reforms and established an independent judicial system, Russia did not have a representative assembly or a constitution until the 1905 Revolution.
Throughout much of history, the Divine Right of Kings was the theological justification for absolute monarchy. Many European kings, such as the Tsars of Russia, claimed that they held supreme autocratic power by divine right, and that their subjects had no right to limit their power. James I and Charles I of England tried to import this principle into England; fears that Charles I was attempting to establish absolutist government along European lines was a major cause of the English Civil War. By the 19th century, the Divine Right was regarded as an obsolete theory in most countries, except in Russia where it was still given credence as the official justification for the Tsar's power.
In Denmark-Norway the system was underpinned by the 1665 Lex Regia whose § 2 stipulates that the monarch shall from this day forth be revered and considered the most perfect and supreme person on the Earth by all his subjects, standing above all human laws and having no judge above his person, neither in spiritual nor temporal matters, except God alone. [1] This law consequently authorized the king to abolish all other centres of power. Most important was the abolition of the Council of the Realm.
[edit] Social mechanisms leading to absolute monarchies
 |
This section is a stub. You can help by expanding it. |
According to Norbert Elias's The Civilizing Process, the reason why monarchs like Louis XIV could enjoy such great power is to be found in the layout of the societies of that time, more precisely in the fact that they could play off against each other two rivaling groups within society, namely the rising bourgeoisie, who received growing wealth from commerce and industrial production, and the nobility, who lived off the land and administrative functions. (In the Middle Ages, the nobility served a useful function--fighting wars--which justified their wealth to some degree. After the development of [the longbow and firearms made the heavily armored knight less useful than before, the nobility's position became harder to justify.)
[edit] See also
- Constitutional Monarchy
- Thomas Hobbes
- Democracy
- Monarchomachs (opponents of absolute monarchy in the context of the French Wars of Religion, who theorized the right of rebellion and legitimized tyrannicides)
Forms of Government and Methods of Rule: Autocratic and Authoritarian
|
