Despite the types of relationships people need to develop, governance remains a significant element in organizing communities and making sufficient decisions. Addressing human history and experiences, several forms of government emerged, depending on societies, resources, and other internal and external factors. When ordinary citizens do not govern their countries, it means that one person or a group of people are responsible for decision-making, problem-solving, and maintaining public order. Examples of such systems are authoritarianism and absolute monarchy, and various public views are developed to support and oppose these governances.
Government is a political system chosen by nations to create specific implications for human freedoms and welfare. Certain regimes are more stable than others due to democratic transformations and military experiences (Anckar, 2018). Authoritarianism assumes the absence of political plurality and the application of power to reduce democratic voting and maintain the status quo. Following this system, one individual or group usually holds power and restricts other forms of participation in governance. Monarchy is similar to authoritarianism because power belongs to a single person or family, also known as a royal family, like in the United Kingdom, Sweden, or the Middle East. Monarchies may be absolute when a monarch has full political power and constitutional when the constitution limits the power of the dictator (Anckar, 2018). Stability and public trust are observed when the country has an absolute monarch. The authoritarian system is characterized by few political freedoms and multiple oppressions.
On the one hand, it is correct to consider absolute monarchy a type of authoritarian government. On the other hand, the authoritarian system allows the government to hold power without the citizens’ concept, which might provoke negative public views. Authoritarianism is one of the world’s oldest systems that usually comes from military conflicts (Anckar, 2018). An authoritarian leader aims to control people and ensure they obey rules and orders completely without respecting their freedoms and opinions if it is necessary for stability. People have to follow this form of leadership blindly, including such spheres as the press and political elections. Such requirements and multiple restrictions are associated with negative and unstable public opinions because people want to believe in their unique contributions to national development.
In absolute monarchies, heritage is one of the major power succession types because the throne must be passed among the members of the same ruling family. In most cases, public views remain poorly recognized in these countries because the power of a single person makes it possible to control others’ opinions. The leadership line is stable and unchangeable, and citizens can hardly do something to offer other options (Anckar, 2018). Societal rebellions are possible to demonstrate public concerns, but such steps are violent and cause unnecessary deaths. At the same time, the hereditary nature of this system increases security levels, strengthens long-term national goals, and saves people money. Monarchs do not need public support, but they try to consider public opinion and follow the nation’s interests to maintain their powers and future possibilities.
Public views of the authoritarian and absolute monarchy systems have differences and similarities. Although the public might accept these forms of leadership as restrictive and submissive in many areas, the possibility of saving money, enhancing stability, and reducing political chaos cannot be ignored. Each form of government has its positive and negative characteristics, but today’s absolute monarchy seems more loyal and organized than authoritarianism’s cruelty and harm.
Reference
Anckar, C. (2018). Global patterns of regime change 1800–2015. Political Science, 70(3), 207-223.