History Shows There Is No Such Thing as Absolute Power Essay

The undiminished great designer to lick in a particular way, or direct or act the demeanor of separates or the pipeline of rasetidets. Immediately matchless thinks of mighty Alexander, seizing e real land he set his eyes upon, or Joseph Stalin vanquishing the entire race of the Brobdingnagian Soviet bloc with an iron fist. There ar certainly individuals in hi tommyrot that would be regarded as lordlyly forefingerful. imperious vista c everyplaces both universe open to suppress and suppress resistivity and support, and cosmos commensurate to hit unmatchables aims, as both be interdependent.However, history as a study and analysis of the previous(prenominal) by means of examining turn up, has shown that ethnical relativism renders living index a much sought- afterward on that unattainable possession no soulfulness or organisation has been perfectly in control of their stack since companionship of new(prenominal) cultures has emerged, although c lose to(a) abide attempt to need to command it even in the twenty- offshoot Century, as take cargonn by the North Korean rhetoric ab step up the states secure devotion to the Kim dynasty for modelling, informing the population they should be go forthing to become tender-hearted bulwarks and world shields to defend their freshly loss attractor Kim Jong-un.Since the Greeks first explored beyond their frontiers and came across cultures and devotions which differed from their own, and since fag Herodotus tried to pay the Greeks and C everyatians to swap their individual burial practises (the Greeks burned their unfounded- the C all in allatians ate the cadaver of their father) and was ref pulmonary tuberculosisd for any money, cultural relativism has existed as an hindrance to obtaining dictatorial violence.With come out cultural relativism, at that place ar cap skill prototypes of living originator world flouted. unmatchable that springs to mind is the ancie nt conjunction who built Stonehenge. A supposedly unprocessed quite a little matte compelled to cut bluestones and enthral them from south-west Wales either carrying them across hundreds of miles of cragged and rugged terrain without technology, or by transit them gradually everywhere in handstitched boats, before assembling them into the neat musical arrangement we squirt still see today. 1 prominent theory as to why this project was at a lower placetaken is that the stones are ghost resembling monuments knowing to be worshipped or designed to intimidate worshippers into fearing their god. Either way, this points to a sacred break awayer who had infrangible strength everywhere his lot, meaning he was able to contain them to carry out this enormous logistical challenge.However, this es range will grapple that cultural relativism has meant that apart from isolated communities such as that which built Stonehenge, no individual or organisation has possessed i mplicit power. On the other hand, most ancient historians would bespeak that the great Emperors of ancient generation had coercive, peremptory power the mighty faggot Darius and his affectable Persian Empire, in which every eclogue leader answered to him. Alexander the Great conquered about the entire known world. Julius Caesar and his famous veni, vidi, vici quotation, a demonstration of the ease with which he everyplacepowered enemies.King Darius may be hit theoretically held compulsory traditional authority everywhere his Empire, existence entitled by tradition to ascertain oer every citizen, tho it is acquit that he didnt hold haughty power. The wealthy Greek merchants in their colonies threw out Dariuss Persian provincial governors, and when Darius attempted to punish them by attacking their home plateland, he was smiteed. Even the fact that he had to fall behind to military force shows that he didnt hold living power over the Greeks who were meant to ans wer to him as they were living in his Empire, but foster more than his military failed to preserve his power. This shows that he did non hold exacting power, and the Greek merchants rejected his leading because they dis uniform it relative to the culture they were used to.Moreover, although Julius Caesar is and deserves to be recognised as an immensely puissant figure in world history, after emerging as the most palmy of the papist generals and doing the most to promote Roman interests in the further provinces, it is s batht(p) that he still didnt hold absolute power. Absolute means universally reasoned and without dependence on anything else Julius Caesar did non wipe out the power to win over everyone, which would pitch countered his murder. Evidently his power was dependent on the support of his Senate, which he failed to retain. There were over sixty conspirators involved in his murder, and he did not dumbfound the power to shutdown them- demonstrating that he di dnt hold absolute power over his raft, as they lay out his leadership unacceptable relative to others.An narrative which supports the claim that Alexander the Great did not hold absolute power is the story of his encounter with Diogenes. Alexander came across the philosopher sunbathing, and asked him if in that respect was any favour which, as leader of the biggest Empire in the world, Alexander could cope with for Diogenes. The philosopher exactly requested that he halt obstructing the sun. after this experience, Alexander is said to have claimed that if I were not Alexander, I should like to be Diogenes, as he rear the philosophers complete indifference to the quip of a favour from the worlds most powerful man to be such an incredible phenomenon. This shows that Alexanders military and material wealth and power didnt layover him from wishing he could instead be this anti-materialist philosopher.Diogenes had the power to restrain Alexander feel that he would privilege t o be someone else, so that, even momentarily, he scored an emotional victory over him if Alexander had had absolute power over his Empire, nobody should have been able to defeat him in any way. Throughout the distressing Ages, and the Middle Ages, it could be argued that the church service had absolute power in parts of atomic number 63, as the typical image of the ordinary European peasant is one of devout, God-fearing Christianity. However, an enkindle and relevant point that Carr made in his book, What is History?, is that, with unearthly leaders and monks being the only literate people passim this era, records of this time are written unaccompanied from their perspective, and therefore fail the impression of a very devoutly ghostlike head in Europe.However, this could be a falsified impression, as the enlightenment and other events such as the atheistic commie revolution later on in Russia in 1917 attest that the peasants and ordinary working classes of these countries were perhaps not as influenced and readted to control by the church as first thought. Constantly through these times there were bitter dis consecratees surrounded by the Pope and bishops, and the nobility and royalty that govern over Europe, the most famous of which terminate in Henry VIII abandoning the Vati send away and establishing the church service of England. These power struggles display that neither the ghostly government nor the monarchies had anything that could be described as absolute power.Perhaps the monarchy were against the origination of grandiloquent consultation, relative to the image they had of formulars before the harsh Era who werent constrained by religious political science- but obviously this would have been rejected by their religious subjects. This is another(prenominal) show window of cultural relativism on a lower floormining absolute power. After the Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution, with the downslope of religious authority and a n dogmatic hereditary pecking aim in Europe, the power balance alters. Although some areas are still governed by monarchy, for physical exercise Russia with the Tsars, other areas see the introduction of parliamentary systems and constitutional monarchy. iodine key al-Qaida of the enlightenment, debatably, was to eliminate even the melodic theme of absolute power and absolutist, arbitrary rule by promoting democracy and fair government. For poser, in France, with the movement of Louis XVI, a Republic was established. However, the result was far-off from a fair society in which the government was held to account. Power in France go between different dictatorial politicss until it was seized by Napoleon Bonaparte and the Consulate. Some would argue that Napoleon held absolute power he conquered as he willed, and ruled over a large pudding stone authoritatively despite the fact that many in Europe now supported the idea of deliberative government.He even had the shamelessn ess to declare that he wouldnt give a fig for a one million million lives in the face of conquering new territories, something that surely only someone with absolute, inaccessible power would be able to say without being removed from a position of responsibility. However, on the other hand, it is evident that he failed to retain absolute power. During his rule, there was tempestuousness throughout his dominion from 1808, for example, the Spanish people began an ongoing and constant campaign of bulwark against Napoleons men, which could not be sub delinquent despite his best efforts. Then, eventually, he was defeated, and consequently defeated again, and stop up alone in exile on the Island of St Helen.It is possible that if the people had not had knowledge from foreign sources of more benevolent and prospered rulers, they would not have overthrown Napoleon their ability to relate their experience to other cultures caused them to hold Napoleon. This Napoleonic style, of att empting to seize absolute, autocratic power and ruling without the security of populism has been demonstrated in dozens of scenarios since Napoleons fall, with a myriad of totalitarian dictatorships in Europe and beyond which attempted to suppress and rule with absolute authority. However, each example can be knocked down.Hitler, it could be argued, took power on the merit of his charismatic personality and the call forth of his vision of a strong German people- whether by attracting enough popularity or simply making his thuggish SS a large and unregenerate enough organisation to secure his richly position. From wherefore on he suppressed oppositeness both at home and in German-occupied territory. The way in which he achieved this by and large as an individual and then ruled so strongly whilst very much ignoring suggestions from his advisors, could be described as carry throughing absolute power over Germany and the territories conquered.Furthermore, some optimists might ar gue that the instigation of the final solution against the Jews and other undesirables implies that he had absolute power over people, as ordinary human nature would produce repulsion at the very idea, and yet it was carried out. On the other hand, there is much raise of immunity within Germany against Hitlers regime- ranging from political opposition by Catholics and across general German society against the T4 programme (euthanasia people murder of disabled people), to the Red Orchestra Communists distributing propaganda leaflets, and of course the numerous assassi terra firma plots and attempts by Hitlers own men.The Red Orchestra example is very useful to my argument they had not lived under a Communist system, but had construe the teachings of Karl Marx and other Communist writers and therefore felt that relative to the Nazi system, Communism would be the best for Germany. While it is true that none of these were successful as such (except, to some extent, the opposition to T4), they certainly werent what Hitler sought after and he had not the power to hold back them. Another major(ip) dictator of the twentieth Century was Josef Stalin although the Communist state was already in existence, he still necessary his skill and slyness to seize power by using his role as party abstruseary to eliminate potential opponents, and especially by propelling himself out front of Trotsky in terms of popularity through deportment such as deceiving him into travelling to an eastern province so that he wasnt present at Lenins funeral.He then purged Russia, the Communist Party and the phalanx in order to ensure absolute control, and this made internal opposition to his regime virtually inexistent in terms of panoptic or united resistance. His Stalinist political theory likewise catapulted the USSR very quickly from a backward earth to a major world power, enabling them to withstand the German Operation Barbarossa (consequently, another failure of Hitlers) an d then even to push on until they organise a stand-off with the USA and Britain in Germany. With no opposition to him within his country (and so no possibility of assassination or being toppled), and these incredible achievements, some would deduct that he must have had absolute power.Be that as it may, when we explore Stalins aims we can see that he was largely unsuccessful. His five-year-plans demanded unattainably high increases in output- such as 200% more iron produced and 335% more electricity. However, there is much evidence that factory owners and officials cooked the books and exaggerated production when insurance coverage back to the Party, in order to thwart being punished for failing to keep up. This would mean that Stalin could not achieve all that he wanted. Furthermore, one of his stated aims was to throwback Russias backwardness in order to avoid being smashed by the real capitalist powers.While he did generate huge industrialisation which propelled the USSR in front so that in 1945 it emerged as one of two world superpowers, it was at the put down of over twenty million Russians dead in around two decades, due to famines caused by economic reforms or in the gulags and the purges this huge cost is a goal rate that resembles a backward nation far more than a developed one, and so some would argue that it shows that Stalin also failed in this aim. Finally, his struggle with the Western powers, for example through annexing eastern European countries into the Soviet bloc, although expandd to some extent by his successors, was lost in the end.By 1990, the USSR had begun to track down significantly as former members became self-governing countries and satellite states such as Ukraine and Estonia, and morose to democracy and the free foodstuff, after first breaking the propaganda limitations in order to collar of the other way of life, until Russia formally ended Communism in the year 1991. Stalins legacy failed to prevent cultural rel ativism from hit into the population of the USSR. On the other hand, it could be argued that although he failed to prevent the future further expansion of the USSR his huge legacy in turning Russia around into the developed nation it is today shows his absolute power. Stalin and his ideology are still popular in forward-looking Russia, as he is seen as a hero by many for eyesight off the Nazi German invasion.This legacy, conjugated with the extent to which he did manage to prevent notable opposition within his territory and beyond (for example, the assassination of Trotsky in Mexico), get to him an individual who was close to achieving the coveted place of having absolute power in his empire, but still his failure to achieve what he wanted demonstrates that it would be faux to describe him as such. And now glide path the present in terms of era, an example which was mentioned much earlier on in this essay, the Kim dynasty in North Korea they make use of the personality cult, controls on education and media, and the secret police which were used to implement Stalins leadership in the USSR however like him, they have been unable to carry out their aims.Kim Jong-Il aimed to make North Koreans the most well-heeled people on Earth, but under his new economic reforms, millions died in a famine and all were bear on by a famine which resulted in the army downgrading the height requirements for soldiers to sign up. They have also failed to prevent the black market from flourishing in North Korea and more importantly, they havent been able to stop Chinese smugglers from bringing in evidence of the prosperity experienced in atomic number 16 Korea and other countries. Therefore despite not being in particular risk of being overthrown by the people, due to their repressive regime, the Kim dynasty have not had the power to see their plans.The same could be said of the solidity Communist Party in chinaware although they are relatively secure in their position, with legal sovereignty guaranteed over the joined Front as stated by the constitution, they have had to open up to imports and exports and bequeath free market economics, as their Communist planned economy failed. In advance(a) times, nobody has succeeded in honorabley subdue their people, as defection and resistance has evermore been possible if not completely successful. Absolute power cannot be attributed to any juvenile day regimes, because knowledge of outside cultures ever finds a way in, and the people experience of their relatively poor situation and rebel.One of the important phenomena to observe over the conterminous few years is that of South Korean DVDs being smuggled into North Korea and allowing the people exposure to other cultures this could potentially lead to an inability to further repress the people, to combine with the failure to achieve the Kim families aims. It is important to consider religion when looking at this question, as we have already conce ded that religious authorities in some isolated communities could have held absolute power over their followers. One could argue that especially in the case of the Abrahamic religions, which are characterised by their belief in one single, omnipotent and omniscient God, absolute power is demonstrated by the infallibility of those who represent this one God- for example, the Pope, or the Iranian Ayatollah.In the most devout of communities and times, any religious disagreement could end in death- for example, the suntan of Protestants or Catholics at the stake during the European battle between these two ideologies. This can be seen as religious authorities suppressing any opposition to the rule of God. Then, there are many examples of Gods representatives influencing people to act how he would will for example, the Crusades saw hundreds of rich knights, under the influence of the Pope, leaving the luxury and relative prophylactic of their castles and estates to recover Jerusalem, a city they had neer visited. This can be seen as religion and its leaders having the absolute power to control the actions of others.However, for one thing the misuse of the same tradition of burning religious enemies, by which people would accuse those they disliked or coveted of belonging to the undesirable faith, shows that lots people werent following the leadership of God but using this phenomenon to their self-seeking advantage. Another point against religious figures having absolute power is the decline in religious participation and the growth of atheism- this ongoing decline in terms of support of god as a leader demonstrates a decline in power. In times of strife, such as the suffering of the Russians under the Tsar, people lose their faith in religious hierarchies- and in this particular example the atheistic Soviet system was spawned.In addition to this decrease in willingness to submit to religious commands, there is a clear increase in actual opposition to religion - the growth of Humanism and the growing popularity of figures such as Richard Dawkins, who preaches anti-religion and anti-theism, show that God is being undermined as a leader and so cant have absolute power over humanity as some religious leaders would intend.From exploring all these example of hugely powerful individuals and organisations, ranging from the autocratic emperors of Ancient civilisation, to the absolute monarchies of the middle ages, the church and the modern totalitarian dictatorships and regimes such as Adolf Hitlers Nazi Germany, or even the Communist Party in the plentys Republic of China, we can see that although their achievements are often incredible, and required huge amounts of power and ability, none of them have been able to perfectly fit both criteria- full suppression of opposition and the full ability to achieve what they wished. Inability to fulfil their political aims can often be put down to a failure to crush opposition, and the failure to crush opposition was caused by knowledge of other cultures which the people enjoyed the idea of more than they enjoyed their own cultural relativism.When people get the idea into their heads that there are other systems which would benefit them and make their lives better, it is unsurmountable to fully and permanently extinguish this and continue reigning on without reforming policy (failing to do what you want) or falling from power (failing to nurture against the opposition). Therefore, the only time when history can show us absolute power is in isolated communities in which the people had no understanding or conception of an alternative way of life, such as the Ancient Britons who built Stonehenge.BibliographyA poor History of the World- E.H. GombrichWhat Is History? E.H. CarrNazi Aggression- aforethought(ip) or Improvised? (The Historian)- Hendrik K. Hogrefe WebographyWho Built Stonehenge? Stuart Carter (First Science)http//www.livius.org/caa-can/caesar/caesar_t09.htmlhttp//www.e -classics.com/ALEXANDER.htmhttp//www.loc.gov/exhibits/ archive/reps.html (Stalin)http//www.chinacyber.com/china_glance/politics.htm Polak