History contrast between England and French political structures - Essay Example

History –contrast between England and French political structures Europe is among the first continents where countries were discovering as well as changing their ways of operation, both politically and economically. Some of the states in this continent opted to stick to their traditional ways of life while others were ready to embrace changes. The examples of countries with such different ways of life are England and France. Despite them being located in the same continent, they had concrete differences in their political structure which we are going to explore.

To start with, the French government was under a king and was considered absolute monarchy. This is because it was believed that the king held all the powers and was only answerable to God only. It was also believed that the king was ordained by God and therefore going against the king was going against God. According to Jean Domat and Jacques Benique Bossuet, king’s subjects had to be submissive and obedient failure to which one was said to resist God authority (Wollmann, 10). Additionally, it was believed that for the country to survive, only one person could rule it and that person had to be in charge of all the people.

Every citizen had to follow the laws set by the king and nobody could question the king. This ensured that the country had the best defense against any form of division among the citizens. However, England had quite a different type of political structure. This is because the English monarchy was as successful s French one since the will of people had triumphed over that tradition resulting to new form of government. England’s monarchy was always threatened by coming up of institutions such as parliament, Magna Carta and the common law which somehow were always against the traditional governance.

Due to the monarchy’s cruel treatment of its subjects, parliament created the Petition of Rights (Wollmann, 10-25). Unfortunately, the king not willing to consent, had the parliament dissolved and for some time held complete control over England. This did not last long as the parliament reconvened resulting to civil war between the royal authority and the parliament supporters. This was the end of the absolute monarchy in England and it was parliament that had control over the type of governance any leader was to follow.

The elimination of monarch led to creation of bill of rights by parliament hence leaving monarchy subjects with no power. From this discussion, it is clear that both states started with the same system of governance, the absolutist monarchy. However, due to tension in England, monarchy system gave way to Parliament whereby all the subjects were now treated equally. On the other hand, the French government remained in the absolutist monarchy system with the believe that only one person can keep the state united (Wollmann, 26-46).

Consequently, France was unable to unite lower class and upper class since the government only catered too aristocracy while England’s use of parliament equalized all the subjects. Factors that led to the shaping of both countries differences were the status quo. One country valued the wealthy class and shunned the lower class while the other country eliminated the class factor thereby treating all citizens equally. This was what contributed to difference in the governing of the two states.

In conclusion, is clear that the governing system of England was concerned about the well being of all it citizens and paved way for many countries to follow its system. The success of England’s rule through parliament led France leaders that they could also have a successful government without following monarchy. Works Cited Wollmann, Hellmut. "Local government systems: from historic divergence towards convergence? Great Britain, France, and Germany as comparative cases in point." Environment and planning c 18.1 (2000): 33-56.