Absolutism Vs Democracy Dbq Analysis

Chace Perkins
Justin Aube
AP World History
February 17th 2011

Which form of government was most effective during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries? Absolutism or Democracy? Everything that we as humans take part in during life has some sort of role with our government. What we eat is decided through government permits who allow or disallow people to produce. Where we work is closely monitored by the government, as well as the money we are allowed to bring home for our families. Who we are married to and how our children are taught is also rigorously observed and modified. In other words, our government has the power to change lives. However, at one time, our lives had to be governed by something. Back then, there were disputes
over what kind of government is necessary. Those times in question are between 1600 and 1700 CE, where absolutism ruled with an iron fist. Democracy may have been a hope for the people that someday, they would rise up and gain equality, but it was only this. Absolutism was absolute and throughout the 17th and the 18th centuries. To be a king during these times was a position of incredible honor and immense power. These men controlled the military, the trade, the laws and rights of his people. Naturally, they all will have a bias towards absolutism, or else we wouldn't be recognizing them as kings now. Yet, some kings go above and beyond with their kingly beliefs. As seen in Document two with King James I of England, “The state of monarchy is the supremest thing upon the earth; for kings are not only God's lieutenants upon earth, and sit upon God's throne, but even by God Himself they are called gods.” Such is an example of power going to one's head. King Louis XIV, as seen in Document three was a bit more wily in his written thoughts. He said, when summarized, that a ruler must be careful when appealing to the public, the state, or king, must come first. The masses function to carry out the commands of the ruler, who makes the decisions. In other words, King Louis' view of how the king should be focused and lavished on as top dog. On the semi-opposite side of the coin, stood the democratic idealists. They believed that every man deserved to be treated equally; that every man should bear the same rights as any other. This seems understandable, because as the Christians say: “All men are created equal in the eyes of God.” He may not have been used this analogy, but John Locke was a famous liberty writer who spoke out against absolutism. As seen in Document five, he writes that men are all free, equal, and independent by nature.
The intended use of government by the people is that feeling of safety, but at some point, that governmental power grew to epic proportions. Thus, the power grows to a point where the intended purpose is all but lost. Another popular equal rights writer is a man by the name of Voltaire. In Document four, he wrote, “I may disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it...” This only stressed how important equality of rights and status of man was. These men, however, were still higher up on the class scale; which brings to mind that they would have to make an effort to see the world from the view of the less fortunate. Other writers were part of this same predicament, but had remarkably different outcomes with their work.
Some of the writers would simply not agree that all men are created equally. One such Englishman named Montesquieu falls neatly into this category. He roughly states in Document six that absolutism is not the way to go. In his eyes, the best form of government is one that uses a separate three part system, considering how if one body contains all the power, then that body will become corrupt. The last, but certainly not the least of our writers is the renowned Machiavelli. As he is known for his lengthy scripts, he says in Document one, that all men are created ungrateful, fickle, deceitful, and selfish. Always the optimist, he speaks of how man has always kept alliances alive through money, not love. Love can be overridden, or altered, like the change in tides. The fact that men always are full of contempt and distrust for one another bolsters the fact that anything but one ruler is preposterous. The only flaw I find with the collection of names above, is the lack of a peasant. These men are very well off, or else their writings would not be so intellectual or advised. To hear the undaunted speech of a simple man, and the not-so-simple effects of governmental forms would bolster the value of this
piece. However, none of these men have truly answered which government was most effective. Another famous quote of Machiavelli's is, “Man will always favor the government that is most beneficial to himself.” He is a victim of his own quote. As a higher class man, he received more attention for writing than he would as a lower class man. Yet, the government that took the most effect was absolutism. This was the instituted way things worked, and during these times, empires from around the continent were trying to gain power, and to change one's governmental fabric would take a lot of cutting and sewing, while attentions where also elsewhere.