Absolutism: an outdated political theory

In the 17th century absolute rule and divine ruler seemed to characterize many of the major empires. While today we may see this type of rule (at least i see it) as outdated and troublesome, in the 17th century it seems most citizens in the different empires were accepting of this rule. There are some advantages to absolute rule, first that one or a few rulers rule over an entire empire thus leaving no room for dissent. These rulers alone decide what is good for the empire. I believe this can be both good and bad. It's good because if a decision is made the rulers don't have to wait for it to be approved or passed, they can take action immediately as in cases of war or decisions that need to be made quickly. This can also be bad though because if one person or a few people are making decisions for an entire empire, the people beneath them are bound to disagree and if they do there is nothing they can do to change the decision of the ruler. In fact these people may be punished for disagreeing with the absolute ruler. Another positive aspect of absolute rule is that these rulers may actually have the best interests of their empires at heart (although some did not) and may actually do things that profit their empires. For example, Louis XIV made the arts prosperous in France and established many different academies for the French people. Suleiman of the Ottoman Empire created a golden age of literature and art during his reign, the Safavids of Persia made their empire the political, economic and cultural leader of Asia, and the Moguls of India gave the people in their empire religious toleration. But while these leaders may have done things to benefit their empire, many absolute rulers were selfish and controlling and approved things they cared about. Louis XIV for example, caused France to become impoverished because of his lavish spending in the arts. He also taxed the poor and peasants heavily to generate money for his indulgences. The same is true of the Moguls- their peasants were taxed heavily and although their empire thrived the lower class was unhappy and living in poverty. The Ming and Qing dynasties in China are another great example of controlling absolute rulers who didn't do what was in the best interest of their people. In Faith, Reason and Power it says the Chinese people were afraid to threaten their authority, forced to adopt the Manchu hairstyle and forbidden to enter the Forbidden City.

So while there are both positive and negative aspects of absolute rule, I personally would never choose this form of government. I believe that there needs to be someone to balance the absolute rulers power because if there isn't they will make decisions in their own interests and for their benefit. Also, an absolute ruler mutes the voice of the people which is extremely important, especially in today's society. If we had an absolute ruler, people's disagreement would be put down and not listened too and sometimes the citizens ideas are the best. Finally, if one leader doesn't listen to the complaints of their people, this will cause the citizens to be unhappy and possibly revolt, causing more problems within the empire. So while this rule may have worked for a period in the 17th and 18th centuries it is far too outdated and has too many drawbacks to be brought back.