Nowadays certain pundits extol alleged virtues of autocracy and absolute rule by a dictator. They however fail to realise that such an absolutist autocratic rule is merely an illusion, perpetrated by those who do not understand how things really work.
To explain how absolutism worked I will use example of absolutist rule in France. 16th and 17th century French monarchs known to have ruled as absolutist monarch who never called parliament and made all decisions himself. While this indeed happened the reason for this was not that somehow people back then were more accepting of autocratic rule and certainly not because French rulers were somehow strong or charismatic to rally people behind them. Far from it, the reason for such an autocratic rule was money.
To begin I need to explain roots of parliamentary power. Parliament or Estates General in French in their original Medieval form had power to raise money authorize expenditure, that is it. Parliament never controlled what King can or cannot do, but it had power to either pay for it or not. That gradually evolved into a power to control the King only because things cost money and without parliament paying for any of it, king could not afford anything.
King had power to call parliament, still a ceremonial thing in British Parliamentary system. However, during Middle Ages such calls were not ceremonial, but very often of Kings own private initiative. King did it not out of kindness of his heart and love for democracy and parliamentarism but entirely due to the fact that he ran out of money and now has to ask for more.
Deliberation on whether all present in parliament should chip in and take their own money out of their own purses to bail out their King went just as smooth as one would expect. Neither side liked it but there was nothing they could do about it. The civilians needed King and his knights, later his military, to protect them from Vikings, bandits and other such problems and King needed money.
Negotiations in Parliament were terce. King would get their way more often than not, but not always completely without consequences. For example, British gradually extracted concession on governance and use of the money they provide for the king. That gradually led towards Parliamentary rule in UK and British democracy.
Most Kings wanted to be rid of this onerous task of parlaying for money, but most could not. The only way out of it was finding alternative source of money.
One such source was a credit from wealthy bankers like Italian Medici. Medici's money was the real source of French absolutism, together with profits from Tortuga Corsairs (as I explained in a separate article), plunder in numerous wars and reparations from defeated opponents. Flushed with cash from all these money streams, Louis XIV could easily ignore Estates General, proclaim etat c'est moi and rule as absolutist monarch without pesky parliaments or democracy. People like it too, but not because they were enamoured with how strong or beautiful Louis XIV or had some love for a "strong hand" or the like. What they liked is the fact that King stopped begging them for money and they now get to keep more of it for themselves.
However, absolutist French fortunes did not last forever, when Golden Age of Piracy ended and profits from Corsairs with it, Medici died out and few unsuccessful wars drained coffers on supporting soldiers instead of brining much needed loot, King had no choice but call back that pesky parliament and beg for money.
French people who according to some historical pundit "love their king and will never go parliamentary like British did" of course understood the urgent need to bail out their king with their contribution. Just kidding, it resulted in French Revolution and beheading of the King. Looking back some historians call Louis XVI who was forced to call parliament a weak and ineffective King, that is however completely misses financial reality of the matter and the fact that his predecessor squandered wealth in 7 Years War, due to being stupid, more on that in another article. By the time Louis XVI got reigns, it was already too late to fix anything, he was but a scapegoat.
The above money principle works as a general rule from places like nearby Britain all the way to Ancient Rome. British Charles I was beheaded by parliament because he was poor and in need of cash to support his standing army and tried to extract money from them without their consent, bypassing parliamentary rules. Louis XIV could rule as absolute monarch because he had enough money without need to recourse from collecting from citizens/subjects. Meanwhile Louis XVI lost his head like Charles I because he too had no money like Charles I and also wanted to collect from citizens. Even Julius Caesar back in Ancient Rome managed to become an absolute ruler only because he has massive wealth he plundered from Gauls in his Gallic campaigns. Absolutist rule of Roman Emperors only continued for as long as there were still Gauls to plunder and when they run out of Gauls the entire system collapsed together with Roman Empire itself. People who say barbarians destroyed Rome simply do not understand how economy, and, by extension, world, works.
You can even explain Nazis with this. Germans supported Hitler not because they love war or autocratic rule by a strongman, but because he promised Germans Jewish money, Polish land and slave labourers to work it all. References to Rome in Nazi symbolism are not coincidental either, Caesar did not treat conquered Gauls any better than Nazis treated those in concentration camps. Hitler was clearly imitating Caesar's economic model.
Even current economic woes can be explained with exact the same principle. Capitalist system sources of wealth started running dry, so it fails to pay its stakeholders their due and now seeks to prop itself up at expense of the bottom tier of society, much like Louis XVI tried to do after a several ill-conceived wars run his treasury dry. More on it in a separate article.
