It is known that a state without government is a state in chaos and confusion. What the best possible form of government should be has been debated by political philosophers over time. To vigorously ensure the well-being of a state, the government of that state should be absolute or one in which all power is vested in a single ruler. A monarch's authority to govern should be absolute because God establishes kings, decisions would be made quicker, and there would be less conflict between differing parties.
God establishes kings; so therefore, a monarch's authority to govern should be absolute. In Document 3, Bishop Jacques Bénigne Bossuet writes that God establishes kings as his ministers and reigns through them over the people. The right to rule is derived directly from God, not from the consent of the people. Bossuet believes that the royal throne is not the throne of man, but in fact, is the throne of God himself (Document 3). God rules over the people through the king that He specifically puts on the throne. Bossuet also writes "The Prince, adds Saint Paul, is a minister of God to thee for good'" (Document 3). As an instrument of God, a monarch should have absolute authority to rule over the state and ensure the well-being of the people.
Although a monarch's authority to govern should be absolute because God establishes kings, that is not the only reason. Decisions would be made quicker if the monarch's authority were absolute. Catherine II, Czarina of Russia, writes "The Sovereign is absolute; for there is no other Authority but that which centers in his single person, that can act with a Vigour proportionate to the Extent of such a vast Dominion" (Document 5). Only an absolute ruler can act with such effectiveness. Edmund Burke writes "The will of the many, and their interests, must very often differ" (Document 8). If there is not a single, absolute ruler, decisions must be discussed before they are carried out. This could take a very long time...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document