The Absolute Monarch as The Beneficial Type of Government in Europe During The 17th and 18th Century

During seventeenth and eighteenth century Europe, democracy and absolutism were two incredibly controversial forms of government. However, absolute monarchy are not only more beneficial to the people in that they were not necessarily ready for a “true” democracy, both because of the conflicts between major European powers and because of the overall condition of European people at the time. In addition, absolute monarchies had often proven themselves to be very successful forms government, such as in the case of Louis XIV. At the time, absolute monarchy system that was more necessary to the Europeans than democracy was.

Democracy or Absolutism

In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, many European powers were still focused on conquering more land and having more colonies, and they were, for the most part, very religious countries and empires as well. This resulted in many wars fought between them. These wars were fought at close quarters, meaning that the government often would have had to make military decisions quickly. The rapid response of the military could make or break an invasion or a battle, and having a democratic government would mean that those military decisions could not have been made as quickly. Thus, the invaders could potentially take over more of a country’s land than necessary if the country was a democracy, as the citizens or Parliament would have to hold a meeting and then vote on a military decision, which would waste valuable time. Having an absolute monarch would not only mean that decisions and laws would be executed much quicker, but also that the citizens would fight amongst themselves about controversial topics much less because they do not necessarily blame each other for a military decision or the passing of a law that may not be in the best interests for their particular minority. The absolute monarchy would therefore be able to ensure the safety and the security of the citizens and the territory in certain areas much better than a democracy could.

Even if the people were given a right to vote on which what the country would do, many of them would not know which decisions would be beneficial for the country as a whole, or the less-educated and illiterate people would be easily bribed or manipulated by people in positions of higher power, such as the church or the nobles. Uneducated citizens would not make good decisions for their country, as they are not informed about the country’s relationships and histories with other countries. If those uneducated citizens were to elect leaders, they would not be able to accurately judge the intentions and the abilities of the candidates because they have not seen each candidate’s interactions with the nobles and the elite of their country and of other countries, which would have been a defining factor for many potential leaders for European countries. The democratic majority would not reflect the interests or the rights of minorities, especially the religious minorities in seventeenth and eighteenth century Europe, and would negatively impact the benefit of the country as a whole.

In the 1600s and 1700s, when wars were so frequent and people had such little knowledge of their government and of the world as a whole, an absolute monarchy was the only way to ensure that the country’s decisions would be in the best interest’s of the people. This can best be seen in the rule of King Louis XIV of France, whose absolute rule was one of the best in history. Under his reign, France rose to become one of, if not the greatest European powers at the time. During his 72-year rule, Louis XIV not only cultivated the arts and culture of France, but also heavily strengthened the military and expanded his country’s territories. Louis XIV extravagantly built the Palace of Versailles as a symbol of his power and as a central government building from which he could rule, an expensive feat which undoubtedly could not have been done by any of his predecessors. Louis XIV not only protected classical French writers, but also allowed them to publish many great works of literature; he commissioned hundreds of paintings and allowed musicians and composers to thrive. Without Louis XIV’s absolute rule, France would certainly not have become the premier nation it was at the end of his reign. France was most definitely one of the most powerful and influential empires of its time, especially under the reign of Louis XIV.

Absolute monarchy was much more essential to in the context of seventeenth and eighteenth century Europe than democracy was. The European people were not ready for a real democracy; they still had frequent religious and territorial wars, and the majority of the people were uneducated and illiterate at the time. An absolute monarchy protected the subjects, especially those near disputed borders, from frequent invasions and battles. The presence of an absolute monarch was also crucial because not all the subjects were sophisticated enough to make informed decisions on government policies and were easily manipulated. Louis XIV was just one example of an absolute monarch that brought his country to an entirely new level of power. Though democracy now thrives in the United States, it was imperative that seventeenth and eighteenth century Europe was ruled by an absolute monarch because the presence of a strong central government was the only way some of the European countries would have been able to culturally evolve and keep up with the rapidly changing world.