Absolute Monarchy vs. Parliamentary Monarchy

319 Words2 Pages
In history 17 th century was known as the great rebellions and emerge of new government systems. In that time, religious and regional conflicts caused several upheavals and wars. To cope with these, governments bring new professionalized armies and extreme taxes on citizens who are already not wealthy enough. Due to inhibit the uprisings, in that period, two types of different monarchies become apparent. One type of government was absolute monarchy, which is consisting of the balance between king and nobles. King has unlimited power, he is not legally bound and during the economic or nation- state based decisions he was the responsible person. Also monarchs gain power either marriage or hereditary. In religion, there is no freedom which means government controls over the Church. They believed God choose them and acquire power for unity of their countries. France is the most suitable example for absolute monarchy. King Louis XIV’s ‘’I’m the state’’ statement also explains only God can say if he was wrong or right. On the other hand, the other type of government was parliamentary monarchy, in which kings shared power with their representatives who selected by the nobility and urban classes and he is legally bound by constitutions of his country. In contrast to absolute monarchs, parliament is responsible for economic and external issues. There is an election system that brings equation. We can see this system in Britain and Netherlands. Absolute monarchy was start with the decline of the church whereas, parliamentary monarchy launched when rulers exploit their powers. Nevertheless, they shared important characteristic which was based on nation-states. Unlike great empires, they lead people who shared common culture and language. To sum up, both have bad affects but in that period, it may be necessary. In my opinion, a well absolute monarch can be useful but if
Open Document