The Differences Between an Absolute and a Non-Absolute Ruler and Whether a State Can Function Under Both Types of Rule

What is the difference between an absolute and a non-absolute ruler? Can a society function under both types of rule, why or why not? Provide examples to back up your claim. Following the social and political rebellions of the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries was a search for order characterized by the extension of monarchical power. Two systems emerged in state building during the seventeenth century, absolute monarchy and limited monarchyю In absolute monarchies, the ruler had supreme and absolute power, whereas in limited monarchies, the ruler shared power with his representative assemblyю

Examples in history, such as Frederick William I of Prussia (r.

1713-1740) and the current Queen of England, Elizabeth II, are testimony to the ability of societies to function under both types of rule. Frederick William, I was an absolutist ruler in every sense of the title; he concerned himself with all aspects of Prussia's government. Through both military strategy and his economic policies, he consolidated his power and strengthened Prussia economically.

Get quality help now

WriterBelle

Verified writer

Proficient in: Government

4.7 (657)

“ Really polite, and a great writer! Task done as described and better, responded to all my questions promptly too! ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

He also refused to give anyone else power in the form of influence, refusing to have favorites among family members, military officers or other subordinates, Clearly, this method of ruling was successful.

He never started a war and upon his death, there was a large surplus in the royal treasury, established schools throughout Prussia, and resettlement of a once-devastated East Prussia. On the other hand, Queen Elizabeth II is none-absolutist. Although she is Head of State, England is a constitutional monarchy, meaning her power is limited, and despite her role as a representative for the royal family, national unity, and pride, the ability to make and pass legislation resides with an elected Parliament However, similar to the absolutism of Prussia, England's non-absolutist policy proves successful.

Queen Elizabeth II has been ruling for over sixty years, and up until now, a stable government has been maintained as well as advances in the modern world for addressing minimum wage and global climate change, among other situationsю

In conclusion, despite the fact that absolutists and noneabsolutists take different approaches to governing their state, the success of each governing method as a whole varies from one ruler to another, rather than from one slate-building system to another. However, it is worth noting that the distinction between an absolute and non-absolute ruler is not always clear-cut. Many historical and contemporary rulers operate somewhere in between these two extremes, with varying degrees of power and influence over their countries and people. As to whether a state can function under both types of rule, it is theoretically possible, but it depends on the specific circumstances and the ability of the ruler to adapt to changing circumstances.

In some cases, an absolute ruler may be able to provide stability and order to a country in times of crisis, but their lack of accountability and disregard for the rule of law can also lead to corruption, oppression, and unrest. In contrast, a non-absolute ruler who operates within a system of checks and balances may be better equipped to manage the complex challenges of modern governance, but they may also be hindered by bureaucracy, partisanship, and the need to build consensus among competing interests. Ultimately, the success of a state under different types of rule depends on a variety of factors, including the quality of governance, the strength of institutions, the rule of law, and the willingness of rulers to adapt to changing circumstances and the needs of their people.