Enlightened Absolutism: Is it possible?

[Nanocyborgasm]

Originally Posted by Kaiserguard

With the widespread belief that democracy equals liberty, does anyone here believes that liberty is possible under one despotic ruler, as was proposed by Frederick the Great and Thomas Hobbes?

None, and in fact, the history of the times that immediately followed prove this, in that every absolutist European power was ultimately overthrown and replaced with a republic. If enlightened despotism was possible, you would see a mix of states in Europe today, some absolutist, some republics. Instead, there is only one regime in Europe that approaches absolutist, and that's Belarus.

I submit to you that the only reason enlightened despotism ever existed was because the kings of some countries were interested in advancing their power over the nobility. One way to do this was to upset feudalism, introducing elements that sabotage it and the validity of noble privilege. The benefactors of many liberal reforms were the common people, at the expense of the nobles. The people then came to see their loyalty as more belonging to the king than the aristocracy.

[AbenHumeya]

Enlightened Absolutism is not impossible, there is a non-zero possibility, so yes, it is possible. Liberty is however, subjective and to be entirely honest, the average person cares more about things like having food and shelter and having their children have some degree of healthcare and educational and employment opportunities. If it comes to a mixture between Liberty and Social Security, it is possible, there are many Monarchies still left in the world which maintain high degrees of support from their populace, many of which are checked in some way, by the royal family itself, or by tradition. It all varies by what you would consider 'Enlightened' and 'Liberty' and what you would truly define as Absolutist rule.

[Dachs]

Originally Posted by Nanocyborgasm

None, and in fact, the history of the times that immediately followed prove this, in that every absolutist European power was ultimately overthrown and replaced with a republic.

[Traitorfish]

Well, technically it was. It just came back


(Noting that you've also got of Portugal, Spain, England-Scotland-Ireland, Saxony, Bavaria Sweden, Denmark, Prussia, and probably a few more German states I don't know as examples of monarchies that reformed themselves out of absolutism (or near-absolutism), albeit sometimes to lose them at a later date.)

[ParkCungHee]

France seems pretty good at reforming Monarchies.
Of course, this sort of argument wouldn't have really applied just 20 years ago, so it's not particularly saying much. Europe has a natural trend towards democratic republics has as much evidence backing it as things to the west have a natural trend towards becoming The United States.
Projecting into the future that Absolutism is doomed to be replaced by democratic republics makes as much sense as projecting into the future that Chinese Culture is doomed to be replaced with California Jr.

[AbenHumeya]

The entire European thing is actually a bad example, to some degree, most of the Eastern European monarchies only were abolished because Marxist-Leninist regimes abolished them and established themselves as dictators. Yugoslavia, Albania, Bulgaria, Romania and somewhat Hungary, were all Kingdoms before that happened. In such cases, the governments that replaced monarchies were often (Stalinist and) far more brutal and repressive than the monarchies themselves.

Then, just because a state stands right now as 'democratic' doesn't mean anything about where it will be 10 years from now. The question is more just 'Is it possible?' and I really believe the answer is 'yes', with varying probability based on your personal definition of 'Enlightened' and what you would consider to be 'Absolutist' rule.

[Dachs]

Originally Posted by Traitorfish

Well, technically it was. It just came back

Yeah, and it happened even earlier during the Council of Florence.

The word "ultimately" means that we can ignore both of those instances.

[Kaiserguard]

Originally Posted by Traitorfish

Well, technically it was. It just came back


(Noting that you've also got of Portugal, Spain, England-Scotland-Ireland, Saxony, Bavaria Sweden, Denmark, Prussia, and probably a few more German states I don't know as examples of monarchies that reformed themselves out of absolutism (or near-absolutism), albeit sometimes to lose them at a later date.)

Aren't Monaco and Lichtenstein close to Absolutism? Technically these are constitutional monarchies, yet in practice the Princely head of states come very close to holding absolute power. Not that these aren't so much better than democracies - especially if you're not in need of a tax haven - but these countries do have at the very least a modiacum of personal liberties that does somewhat seem to discredit the notion that personal liberties can only florish under governments with many checks and balances.

[civ_king]

Originally Posted by Kaiserguard

Aren't Monaco and Lichtenstein close to Absolutism? Technically these are constitutional monarchies, yet in practice the Princely head of states come very close to holding absolute power. Not that these aren't so much better than democracies - especially if you're not in need of a tax haven - but these countries do have at the very least a modiacum of personal liberties that does somewhat seem to discredit the notion that personal liberties can only florish under governments with many checks and balances.

Absolute Monarchy does not necessarily equal despotism. While one person might hold absolute power over everyone else this doesn't mean they will interfere much at all. The Pope holds nearly absolute power and yet nearly all of the day to day administration of the Church is carried out by bishops and priests, it is incredibly decentralized.

[Flying Pig]

As I understand despotism is maintained by force; an absolute monarchy maintained by common consent (say, an elected dictatorial family) would not fall into that category.

[Cutlass]

A dictator of any sort only needs to be backed by a sufficient portion of the population to keep the rest of the population in line. That does no require the whole, or even a majority. Just all the ones who have power over others.

[Dachs]

And here I thought that a despot was just a semiautonomous ruler of a geographically separated portion of the Byzantine Empire.

[Kaiserguard]

Originally Posted by Dachs

And here I thought that a despot was just a semiautonomous ruler of a geographically separated portion of the Byzantine Empire.

Well, the term dictator was originally a type of office one could hold in the Roman Empire.

[SiLL]

And the German word for Emperor (Kaiser) is derived from Caesar. Language is funny like that.

[Dachs]

Originally Posted by Kaiserguard

Well, the term dictator was originally a type of office one could hold in the Roman Empire.

Yes, of course, but the modern meaning of "dictator" bears at least some resemblance to the Roman meaning - eventually dictatorial power was seized by generals who ignored what few restrictions the office had had, and simply retained the supreme authority part. Supreme executive power deriving from a mandate from the army is pretty much the way most of the men of modern times that are described as dictators work.

But the modern use of "despot" has effectively nothing to do with the way that that office worked under the Byzantines. The chief feature of despotism was that it was subordinate: the despotate only operated because the despot derived his authority from a mandate from the Emperor. Nowadays, "despot", "dictator", "tyrant" and such are used effectively interchangeably. Nuance is dead. Yet in this thread people are attempting to eke nuance out where there is none, establishing strange formulae for "enlightened despotism" compared to "absolutism" compared to "authoritarianism", and making arguments based on these idiosyncratic definitions.

That sort of lunacy was what I was trying to highlight.

[MagisterCultuum]

When I looked up the etymology of Despot, it claimed that it was originally an honorary title applied only to the Byzantine Emperor himself. After that it came to refer to the emperor's relatives and then to his vassals, but in the original sense it would not have implied subordination.