[bksenior]

The statement is self defeating. Absolute power is playing far less "a game" for the continuted hold of power than is elected. You're right that people generally do whatever it is they think they can get away with, but simply put a king doesnt asnwer to anyone so he is more likely to act in self interest than someone who needs to please others.

[arcticbull]

There is an accountability, both international as we saw here, and domestic which we likely won’t see unless it becomes overwhelming. A monarch who loses support of their people is not long for the role either. Just as one who loses support of their international benefactors. Yes they may get away with more of these “domestic” matters than might a democratically elected leader but that doesn’t mean much in the long run. Just look at Venezuela. Maduro won’t be around forever.

There’s no such thing as absolute power in the realm of governance.

[tjalfi]

Absolute power doesn't mean that you can act with impunity.

Mohammad bin Salman must retain the support of the heads of the army, secret police, and such or he will be replaced.

The Dictator's Handbook[0] discusses this topic in detail.

The Rules for Rulers[1] is an 18 minute video that summarizes some of the principles of the book.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dictator%27s_Handbook

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs

[colechristensen]

Julius Caesar was accountable to quite a few knives, so many French were accountable to the guillotine, and generally there is always a threat to be accountable to a revolution or usurper which with absolute power are all too frequent. Those just being the most dramatic and memorable forms of accountability.

There is no such thing as absolute power even in an absolute monarch. Power is paid for in one currency or another.