Absolutism In Edmund Burke's Reflections On The French Revolution

Absolutism flourished in European countries during the 1600s and 1700s. This principle called for a monarchy with complete sovereignty. Complete sovereignty allowed the king or queen to make laws, tax, administer justice, control the state’s administrative system, and determine foreign policy. The Church supported absolutism with the theory of divine right, arguing that God specifically chose the monarch to rule. Compared to a limited government, absolutism provided a far superior regime. Thus, a monarch’s rule to govern should be absolute, for this rule ensured leadership stability, efficiency, and a stronger, more centralized government. An absolute monarchy was the only capable form of leadership at this time. The people of a country rarely agreed on issues. This discord was not particular to the Age of Absolutism, but rather it was a …show more content…
This efficiency stemmed from a king’s complete sovereignty, which ensured him authority over Parliament. Without this resistance, the king passed laws quickly, and he could make quick decisions. In dire situations, this efficiency was completely necessary. A democracy was not suited to these large, developing nations. Unified opinions were very rare in such vast populations. In Reflections on the French Revolution, Edmund Burke claimed that the interest of the people often differed. The democratic representatives could not embody the dissenting opinions of all the citizens. Thus, if they made an unpopular decision, the people would harshly react. In her speech, Catherine II, Czarina of Russia, claimed that subservience to the people was far more dismal than absolutism. The efficiency of absolutism was exemplified in its rulers, such as Peter the Great. Because of his absolute rule, Peter reformed every aspect of Russia in only forty-three years. This great ruler was able to modernize an entire empire by enforcing a centralized