In the early 17th century "absolutism" was not only thought of in the theological sense it was also a political catch word all through out Europe. England had a few rulers attempt to create an absolute monarchy. James I and Charles I both tried to have complete rule over the country without consulting Parliament. Parliament, which had a large portion of control, prevented these two rulers from successfully hindering their power. The citizens of England were very use to the combined rule of the king and Parliament. So they were not very eager or willing to release all the power to a single person. In Parliament an official could be changed if need be, and no one person could in charge of decision making. This is one of the main benefits to having a Parliamentary type of government. Toward the middle of the 17th century troubles between Charles I and Parliament sparked England's civil war. This in turn created problems for future rulers with aspirations about ruling without Parliament. England's civil war was basically the death of royal absolutism; eventually Parliaments power grew to the point that it became the head body of government in England.
Royal absolutism failed horribly in England, this however was not the case in France. France did not have a power similar to Parliament to try and compete against the monarch for control. The citizens of France were also more willing to accept a single head of government. Most felt that having this strong leader would help protect them and keep the peace within their country.
So in conclusion it is clear to see that both systems of government have benefits and drawbacks. Parliament can help a country make better well rounded decisions and also keep a corrupt ruler in check. Absolutism, with the right leader, can help citizens feel more secure give the country a strong image. So in the end it comes down to what the people want and feel comfortable with.
Section II, Question 3