Absolutism

Pros and Cons of Absolutism They have been called malicious. They have been called brutal. They even have been called magnificent. They rely upon strict, unwavering forms of government and are often violent in putting down any opposition. They use every measure to ensure their rule and often they will not stop at anything including murder. Regardless, there have been numerous absolute rulers throughout history, which have used these principles to govern or persuade. Despite this forceful nature of absolutism, there are positive results of absolutism. Looking at examples from the past and even present day, one can see the positive and negative aspects of absolutism. Between 1400 and 1650, nobles and rulers in Eastern Europe reestablished the medieval system of surfs and feudal lords. This gave way to an absolutist rule. Countries like Bohemia, Silesia, Eastern Germany, Poland, Lithuania also established this rule not by the kings, but by the lords themselves because of this shift in society.[1] Under their absolutist rule, a runaway peasant would be punished by having his ear nailed to a tree and given a knife to cut it off. Lords could force peasants to work for up to 6 days without pay. Although laws were set in place by kings who did not allow this type of labor, they were weak and overlooked by the lords. This resulted in the countries gained economic prosperity[2]. In Brandenburg (Prussian province) while ruled by the Hohenzollern family, Frederick William, The Great Elector, came to power. He was head of electors and tried to unify the 3 separate provinces by developing a permanent army for Prussia and creating "taxation without consent." Because of his absolute ways in economics, the total revenue for the country tripled. From these examples, one can see that absolutism gives way to economic prosperity. Rulers are able to establish regulations that may not be humane or fair, yet they help the nation to receive economic gain. This, however, can work against the ruler if they are not capable to economic management or foresight. Another aspect is that absolutism allows the formation of strong armed forces that protect subjects. Frederick William I, the Soldiers' King, established Prussian absolutism, and created the 4th largest army in the world. It was renowned best because of the harsh training the each soldier endured. He was obsessed over tall soldiers and would go throughout Europe to get them[3]. After the death of Prince Iaroslav the Wise in Russia, the Kiev principality disintegrated into competing political units that continued until 1237. Under these conditions made it easier for the Mongols, a brutal, savage sect to emerge from a politically divided and weak Middle Ages to the conquest of the Kiev states[4]. In the 13th century Ghenghis Khan unified the Mongols and in 5 years conquered China. He continued his conquest through Russian, Prussian, and Hungarian states, conquering whatever lands he chose because of his absolutist ideas in war and governing. The Mongol army was called the Golden Horde, which were savage and extreme warriors who slaughtered entire cities before burning them down and had no compassion for the conquered. The Mongols ruled for over 200 years until Ivan I appeared and took over power. Here, one is able to see how absolutist armies work against rulers and can very unreliable as a utility of a harsh rule. At first Ivan was very stingy and used his enormous wealth to pay off the steep Mongolian taxes. This made him very popular among the Mongolian. To make himself look even better in front of Mongols, he raised an army. However, Ivan’s army rose against the Mongol prince Tuer and defeated him, changing the absolutist power to Ivan[5]. Shifting focus to Western Renaissance Europe, one is able to see how absolutism is successful in maintaining rule. Absolutism can be seen in the works of Machiavelli’s The Prince, which prizes the absolutist rule of Cesare Borgia. Machiavelli uses Cesare Borgia, who ruled used any measure or cost to instill fearful yet powerful rule, to bring Italy to what Machiavelli believed a golden era. However, he defines absolutism, noting that it must accompanied by artifice and trickery. Machiavelli prizes the ruler who instills fear, rather than hate in his subjects[6]. Machiavelli says in his work how rulers like Cesare Borgia must imitate the fox and the lion, “for the lion cannot protect himself from traps, and the fox cannot defend himself from wolves."[7] He hints at the idea that the traditional, and perhaps more admirable concept of a prince, is vulnerable to the attempts of an external force to overthrow the throne. Therefore, he posits the fox as the true nature of a leader. Cesare Borgia was Machiavelli’s fox. Borgia killed his “friends” and other nobles to maintain his rule. He maintained his absolutist position, did not waver in his opinions and did not care for the lives of his subjects. However, he maintained an ostensible benevolent attitude[8]. Later, during the late 16th early 17th centuries The Roman Catholic Church, in the name of financial reasons, used an absolutist stance. The Church allowed the preaching of divine kingship, meaning the King had a divine right to rule the land, they wanted the people to believe the God they worship had placed this very man on earth for the soul purpose of dictation over his people. They did this to please the king and continue his support for the Church. And, during this time, people were extremely influenced by the Church that they believed whatever the Church would dictate. Who would challenge a statement, as the consequence meant eternal exile to Hell' Anyone who did not follow the main Church that would be a threat was simply exiled or killed. This once again helped to maintain followers of the Catholic Church, while the church itself did not abide by its own principles of charity and humility[9]. During this time, King Louis XIV was the king of France and ruled by absolutist principles. Louis’ basic rule was the following: you all get to vote but mine is the only one that counts. He ruled with "yes men" who were representatives that did exactly what he ordered without question. The only executive that existed was three estates, the Clergy, Nobles, and middle and lower class. Although ninety-eight percent of the population rested in one estate they all received one vote. So, there was always at least a two out of three votes for the King[10]. Once again one is able to see an economy that was successful because of absolutism. Louis controlled all trade in the nation by mercantilism and nepotism. He allowed a very few of his friends, nobles and rich upper class, a total monopoly over the trade industry. In return, the King gained two things: a percentage of profits and the loyalty of some of the more powerful nobles in his nation. It was a reciprocal action that no one could challenge because of Louis’ immense power. Louis also stayed in power for so long because of the fear he placed on the people. Having complete control of military and police forces gave him the ability to monitor and control society. The very spoken thought of militancy or disbelief in the system was considered treason and was punishable by the Kings mere whim. This was a major factor as to why Louis’ absolutism lasted as long as it did. The people were terrified of Louis and what he could do to them. Considering that the only real way power could be overthrown was for the peasants to organize against it and since the King very conveniently made it illegal to do so, it became impossible to have any ideas about changing the way of life. When only three percent of the population has one hundred percent of the power and only one-man controls this power, this man has an absolute rule over everything and everyone. This form of rule gave undisturbed order to the Louis, as no man would risk challenging such dominance[11]. Moving into a modern context, the roots of absolutism can even been seen into today’s modern world of representative democracies and parliaments. For years, the Taliban ruled Afghanistan with absolutist principles. The automatic pistol was their method of regulation. People were not allowed to speak out about the government and faced severe consequences if they did so. Women were not allowed to go to school, allowing men to become intellectually superior. Small crimes of theft were often punished with pain or even death. Dancing and other forms of expression were not allowed. All music, except for the secular, was forbidden. Islam was the only religion allowed to be practiced. Women were allowed only to show their eyes in public places and had to cover every inch of their bodies with fabric[12]. Under the Taliban rule, unlike the previously mentioned governments, the already weak economy fell into ruins. Poverty became a way of life under the Taliban rifles. Deriving from early Eastern Europe, Renaissance writing, 16th and 17th century France and today’s Taliban, one can deduce the overall positive and negative aspects of an absolute rule. The main positive aspect of a absolute government is that the rule is ensured. No one is able to conquer a ruler without immense force, which is not usually possible. The people ruled are also more obedient, knowing the consequences of deviance. The negative aspects, however, far outweigh the positive. A major con is that absolutism is based on a weak central government, otherwise, it would not exist. It is important to have a strong central government, otherwise the nation has a greater chance of falling into ruin as seen with the Taliban. Also, the people ruled are in constant fear, not to mention basic civil and human rights are completely ignored. There is constant unrest and uncertainty. Violence is also a major tool used. Economic uncertainty is inevitable, despite the fact that some absolutists have been able to overcome this briefly. Conclusively, despite the fact that absolutist rulers flourished in days past, in a modern context, absolutism is not an effective method. Most people throughout the world are familiar or used to a more fair method of governing where they do not fear for their lives on a regular basis. It is also very important to recognize this to help quell the radical groups like the Taliban who wish to rekindle absolutist ideas. Works Cited Jennings, Lester. Early Eastern Europe. Massachusetts: Harvard Press. Aug 1985. “Kandahar”. http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/2002_01/kandahar.html 23 Jan 2002. Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Prince. New York: Viking Penguin. Jun 1999. “Theories of Absolutism”. http://www.stetson.edu/~psteeves/classes/louisxiv.html. 23 Jan 2002. ----------------------- [1] Jennings, Lester. Early Eastern Europe. Massachusetts: Harvard Press. Aug 1985. [2] Ibid. [3] Ibid. [4] Ibid. [5] Ibid. [6] Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Prince. New York: Viking Penguin. Jun 1999. [7] Ibid. 45. [8] Ibid. [9] [10] “Theories of Absolutism” < http://www.stetson.edu/~psteeves/classes/louisxiv.html. 23 Jan 2002.> [11] Ibid. [12] “Kandahar” < http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/2002_01/kandahar.html 23 Jan 2002>.