During 17th and 18th century Europe, democracy and absolutism were two incredibly controversial forms of government. However, absolute monarchy is not only more beneficial to citizens as they were not necessarily ready for a “true” democracy, both due to conflicts between the major European powers and due to the general condition of the European people at the time. Furthermore, absolute monarchies had often proven to be very successful forms of government, as in the case of Louis XIV. At that time, the absolute monarchical system was more necessary for Europeans than democracy. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Democracy or Absolutism In the 17th and 18th centuries, many European powers were still focused on conquering more lands and having more colonies, and so were, for the most part, very religious countries and empires. This resulted in many wars being fought between them. These wars were fought at close range, which meant the government would often have to make military decisions quickly. The military's rapid response could make or break an invasion or battle, and having a democratic government would mean that those military decisions couldn't be made so quickly. Therefore, invaders could potentially seize more territory than necessary if the country were a democracy, as citizens or Parliament would have to hold a meeting and then vote on a military decision, which would waste precious time. Having an absolute monarch would mean not only that decisions and laws would be executed much more quickly, but also that citizens would argue with each other much less over controversial topics because they would not necessarily blame each other for a military decision or the passing of a law . this may not be in the best interests of their particular minority. Absolute monarchy would therefore be able to guarantee the security of citizens and territory in certain areas much better than a democracy could. Even if people were given the right to vote on what the country would do, many of them would not know which decisions would be beneficial to the country as a whole, or less educated and illiterate people would be easily corrupted or manipulated by people in positions of power superior, like the church or the nobles. Uneducated citizens would not make good decisions for their country, as they are not informed about the country's relations and history with other countries. If those uneducated citizens were to elect leaders, they would not be able to accurately judge the intentions and abilities of the candidates because they have not seen each candidate's interactions with the nobles and elite of their country and other countries, which would have been a determining factor for many potential leaders of European countries. The democratic majority would not reflect the interests or rights of minorities, especially religious minorities in 17th and 18th century Europe, and would have a negative impact on the benefits of the country as a whole. In the 1600s and 1700s, when wars were so frequent and people had so little knowledge of their own government and the world as a whole, an absolute monarchy was the only way to ensure that the country's decisions were in the best interests of the people. This can be best seen in the rule of King Louis XIV of France, whose absolute rule was one of the best in history. Under his reign, France became one of the greatest European powers of the time, if not the greatest. During his.