Absolutism vs. Popular Sovereignty During the French Revolution, views of how people thought the government should be ran changed dramatically. Two sides eventually began to form. There were the people who supported absolutism versus the people who wanted a change and were wanting popular sovereignty. The main difference between absolutism and popular sovereignty was who held the power of the government. Absolutism, or an absolute monarchy, is a form of government where the monarch’s power is unlimited and has absolute power over the people. The sovereign holds all legitimate power and should never be actively resisted. This type of government seems crazy compared to the government that we have today. With absolute government, the ultimate power and authority was in the hands of a king who was said to rule by divine right. Absolutism was the dominant mode of French political thought during the seventeenth century. It was insisted that the ruler’s authority was from God alone. In “The Theory of Divine Right,” Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet explained why he thought an absolute monarchy was the best form of government. He is…show more content… He says that modern states defeat the physical freedom that is our birthright. They do nothing to stop the civil freedom as we enter into civil society. Political authority comes from a social contract agreed upon by all citizens. Rousseau calls the group of citizens the “sovereign.” Sovereign expresses the general will that goes for the common good. The sovereign deals with matter of the public concern. Rousseau recommends that anyone who violates the social contract should receive a death penalty. Rousseau’s most famous line from this work is “Man is born free and everywhere he is in chains.” He presented the political system as a version of his age from the original that was made between primitive
