Absolutism (Political)

advantages:

• not really a huge political debate about who will become supreme ruler
• problems/crises solved faster because the solution doesn't have to go through to the vice president, and all that.

disadvantages:

• people have almost no voice in choosing ruler
• more damage can be done to the country

The only Absolute Monarchies today are Swaziland, Brunei, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the surprising one, Vatican City. I'm not sure about Tonga, where the King still holds a lot of power.

also i have seen another answer saying Saudi Arabia. ...Morocco, Bhutan, Saudia Arabia, Vatican City, and Oman so im not really sure.

good luck
An absolute monarchy is when a monarch has absolute power to do whatever they want. countries currently in this type of gov. are: Brunei, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Switzerland
japan
One is Saudi Arabia.

And another is Vatican City.
Specifically, monarchies in which the monarch's exercise of power is unconstrained by any substantive constitutional law. * Brunei * Oman * Qatar * Saudi Arabia * Swaziland

The following advantages of Absolute Monarchy are:

1) As the supreme head of the country, the King/Queen is the de facto richest person in the nation, rendering bribes and other forms of monetary corruption from businesses and agencies useless. (The head of a Republic is vulnerable to this).

2) Monarchs, serving their nation for life, seek long-term goals and are less likely to make decisions for short-term benefit followed by imminent disaster, such as overspending and other irresponsible actions whose consequences, in a republic, would be the next elected official's problem. Monarchs hence are more inclined to observe the possible long-term effects that may come back to harm them later in their lifetimes before they make a decision.

3) With only one ruler and no layers of government separating the people from their ruler, there is also a reduced, if at all existent, bureaucracy that would otherwise hamper policy implementation. The moment the king issues a decree is the moment the decree comes into effect. (In a republic, the bureaucracy is generally large and therefore slugish).

4) The King/Queen has historical and noble roots in the kingdom he/she defends, and hence, is a source of great national honor,pride, patriotism, and unity, all qualities and reasons for which the people look up to the monarch for guidance, strength, faith, leadership, and protection, especially in times of crisis.

It is the monarch's success or failure in fulfilling his/her duties for which he/she will be remembered for. It is hence a Monarch's best interest to do what is best for the country to insure that he/she leaves behind a powerful legacy.

5) The most poweful incentive for Monarchs not to compromise their people's rights and status as dignified citizens is the fear of revolution.

6) Much like private businessess offer the highest possible quality services to compete against other companies, Kings and Queens, out of their nation's sense of nationalism that is their very source of pride, also compete with other countries for the strongest economy to benefit their people and gain prestige above all other nations.

To be clear, these conditions are not always met, and this response is not an endorsement of monarchy, but rather reasons pertaining to theoretical advantages that can arise only as a result of strong and competent Monarchs.
The advantages of an absolute monarchy are highly dependent on the nation-state in question. Where the national identity is is fractured a single enduring head of state can provide a focus for a sense of national consciousness and pride. Where a nation lacks a tradition of the peaceful handover of power, infrequent changes of government can provide stability. Where these advantages have been sought outside of monarchy, warlords, political strongmen and such have never been able to achieve the political legitimacy conferred on a reigning monarch.

A monarch can also assist in economic development through the suppression of official corruption. Where the citizens (or subjects) lack the power to defend property rights these same property rights can be vested in the person of the monarch. Corruption by lower officials becomes a personal crime against the monarch to which, in theory, the monarch has the power to respond. The monarch can not him or herself engage in theft since in theory everything already belongs to him or her.

The list of nations for whom the lack of civil society and stability make the only alternative to single person rule, chaos and anarchy can be readily culled from the bottom of the index of failed nations states. For these nations, which may aspire to other more representative forms of government, monarchy may provide an attractive interim solution of national governance.

More developed nations may benefit from monarchy where ethnic identity is stronger than national identity. Under these circumstances, representative forms of government have a tendency to be developed into a "spoils" system, which divides resources and power among politicians with little incentive to serve the nations as a whole. In theory, the monarch can stand above the fractions and administer the nation fairly, efficiently and move quickly to address national crises.

It should be noted that all of the advantages listed here are highly dependent on finding a single person able and willing to nurture the power of the institution of the monarchy over a significant portion of his or her lifetime. Under the best circumstances the monarch will act to legitimize his or her rule through the building of a strong civil society, strong political institutions and the management of factions through power sharing arrangements that make long tenure in office acceptable to the various fractions of the political establishment.
Dont no but here are some cons By Telal Mohamed Monarchs have a difficult job. They have to walk the fine line of being strict enough that the subjects won't throw a fit when they don't get what they want but at the same time not being too dictatorial (or else the people will rebel)- and for some monarchs, this too much to ask. They will do what they want, no matter how many toes they step on. They do this because they feel worthy and their subjects are unworthy. The worst part of that is, if your current king is not like that, his son could be. So with monarchies you're taking a big chance.power mad, that's the only down side. as long as they keep the countries best interest in sight they will always do there best and not care for money.Cons

1 - No freedom

2 - No freedom

3 - No freedom

4 - No freedom

5 - No freedom

unilateral decision-making can lead to rash decisions with undesirable consequences

Citizens' interests may not be represented

Succession is not based on a person's fitness as a leader

Change of government is typically achieved through violent and bloody means

Experts and adviser may not be given a proper chance to give honest advice about ruler's policy decisions

Monarchs have a difficult job. They have to walk the fine line of being strict enough that the subjects won't throw a fit when they don't get what they want but at the same time not being too dictatorial (or else the people will rebel)

For some monarchs, this too much to ask. They will do what they want, no matter how many toes they step on. They do this because they feel worthy and their subjects are unworthy. The worst part of that is, if your current king is not like that, his son could be. So with monarchies you're taking a big chance.

Power mad, that's the only down side. As long as they keep the countries best interest in sight they will always do there best and not care for money.

Cons -

• Unilateral decision-making can lead to rash decisions with undesirable consequences
• Citizens' interests may not be represented
• Succession is not based on a person's fitness as a leader
• Change of government is typically achieved through violent and bloody means
• Experts and adviser may not be given a proper chance to give honest advice about ruler's policy decisions

Pros-

• The advantages of an absolute monarchy are highly dependent on the nation state in question. Where the national identity is fractured a single enduring head of state can provide a focus for a sense of national consciousness and pride. Where a nation lacks a tradition of the peaceful hand over of power, infrequent changes of government can provide stability. Where these advantages have been sought outside of monarchy, warlords, political strong men and such have never been able to achieve the political legitimacy conferred on a reigning monarch.
• Monarch can also assist in development through the suppression of official corruption. Where the citizenry (or subjects) lack the power to defend property rights these same property rights can be vested in the person of the monarch. Corruption by lower officials becomes a personal crime against the monarch which in theory the monarch has the power to respond to. The monarch can not him or herself engage in theft since in theory everything already belongs to him or her.
• The list of nations for whom the lack of civil society and stability make the only alternative to single person rule, chaos and anarchy can be readily culled from the bottom of the index of failed nations states. For these nations, which may aspire to other more representative forms of government, monarchy may provide an attractive interim solution of national governance.
• More developed nations may benefit from monarchy where ethnic identity is stronger than national identity. Under these circumstances representative forms of government have a tendency to be develop into a "spoils" system, which divides resources and power among politicians with little incentive to serve the nations as a whole. In theory the monarch can stand above the fractions and administer the nation fairly, efficiently and move quickly to address national crises.
• As long as they have the best for the country in mind can't go wrong really, maybe a few mistakes but that always happens and will be easy to fix. if not will be forgiven much more easier than if its was a group of people.
• Allows for quick and decisive decision-making

  Good for military command

  Allows for long-term stability of leadership

  Can create a higher sense of nationalism & national identity

  Avoids inefficiencies of poly-cameral legislative bodies.

• Political stability, predictable diplomatic pattern, ruler stabilty because the head of monarchy does not change.

It should be noted that all of the advantages listed here are highly dependent on finding a single person able and willing to nurture the power of the monarchy over a significant portion of his or her lifetime. Under the best circumstances the monarch will act to legitimize his or her rule through the building of a strong civil society, strong political institutions and the management of factions through power sharing arrangements that make long tenure in office acceptable to the various fractions of the political establishment.

A Constitutional Monarchy and an Absolute Monarchy are two differant systems based off of the Monarchy Governing style in which and annointed single ruler dominates the country.

Absolute Monarchy: These monarchies ar ruled by a ruling person or family (dynasty) that has absolute control over their realm. In many cases they choose to allow advisors to serve them, elected or appointed. And in many of these nations the monarch "allows" the people the right to a legislative body. But the difference is, an Absoltue monarch can take or give privlages as he or she pleases. But just because the governemnt has complete authority doesnt make it a monarchy, an example is Communist Russia, the government has complete authority, but no one individual person does. (exmples: Saudi Arabia, Oman, Jordan, Monaco, Denmark, Sweden, Thailand, Cambodia, Nepal, Tibet)

Constitutional Monarchy: These monarchies have a limit to their power, their is usually an elected representitive branch (parliament or congress) which put together a Constitution that the Queen or King cannot avoid. Kind of like the laws apply to a President. However in most constitutional monarchies their is a "IN CASE" clause which then allows the king or queen to suspend the Constitution and resume power as an absolute authority figure. The constitution greatly limits some monarchs to a "figure head" position. (examples: England, Spain, Norway, Montenegro, Georgia)

There are a few common beliefs:

• There should be a single leader with nearly complete power. Any dissenters to the power are dangerous and should be strongly punished.
• The ruling leader creates a quasi-divine persona of unimpeachability and perfection. The leader and the state are effectively interchangeable.
• A regimented bureaucracy is key to enforcing the will of the leader
• Militaries are necessary to protect the state from threats both within and without.