Absolute Monarchy

The Divine Right Theory posits that the authority of the monarch is derived directly from a higher, divine source. Monarchs, according to this perspective, are not subject to earthly checks and balances, as their legitimacy comes from a sacred mandate. Justifications for monarchical authority often include claims of a divine appointment, emphasizing the ruler's unique connection to the divine will.

Historically, proponents of the Divine Right Theory have cited the biblical concept of the "anointed king" and religious traditions to legitimize monarchical rule. The coronation ceremonies of monarchs were often steeped in religious symbolism, reinforcing the idea of a sacred covenant between the ruler and the divine. This intertwining of religion and monarchy not only bolstered the legitimacy of absolute rule but also provided a moral foundation for the exercise of unchecked power.

The Divine Right Theory had profound implications for political legitimacy within absolute monarchies. By positing the monarch as a divinely chosen and sanctioned leader, it sought to quell dissent and establish an unassailable basis for the ruler's authority. However, this theory also faced challenges, particularly during periods of religious upheaval, as competing interpretations of divine will often led to conflicts over the rightful heir to the throne.

Social contract theories present an alternative perspective on the theoretical foundations of absolute monarchy, emphasizing the relationship between the ruler and the governed. Hobbes and Locke are two influential social contract theorists, each offering distinct views on the justification and limitations of monarchical authority.

Thomas Hobbes, in his seminal work "Leviathan," posited that individuals willingly surrender certain liberties to a sovereign authority, such as an absolute monarch, in exchange for security and order. Hobbes believed that a powerful, centralized government, exemplified by an absolute monarch, was necessary to prevent the chaos inherent in a state of nature. In this context, the monarch's authority was justified by the need for societal stability and the prevention of anarchy.

John Locke, another influential social contract theorist, presented a contrasting view. Locke contended that political authority is derived from the consent of the governed and that individuals possess certain inalienable rights that a ruler must respect. Unlike the absolutist approach, Locke's theory suggested that the monarch's power should be limited, and any deviation from protecting the natural rights of citizens justified resistance. This perspective laid the groundwork for later discussions on constitutionalism and the protection of individual freedoms.

Niccolò Machiavelli's "The Prince" provided a pragmatic perspective on governance that influenced absolute monarchy. Machiavelli emphasized the necessity for rulers to prioritize effective governance over moral considerations, advocating for strategies that ensured the stability and longevity of the state. While not explicitly endorsing absolute rule, Machiavelli's work contributed to the understanding of power dynamics and the practical considerations involved in maintaining authority.

Patriarchalism is a political theory that defends the concept of the absolute power of the monarchy through language that emphasizes the ‘paternal’ power of the king of the state and his subjects. Robert Filmer, the most well-known proponent of patriarchalism, wrote Patriarcha to argue that the king had the right of fathers passed down from Adam. He used genealogy as a way of legitimizing kingship and criticized the idea of popular sovereignty. The notion of the monarch as a paternal figure responsible for the well-being of the state mirrored patriarchal family structures, and reinforced the idea that a strong, authoritative figure was essential for maintaining order and protecting the collective interests of the population.