1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
kaheart [24]
2 years ago
13

Please Help ASAP WILL MARK BRAINLIEST

History
2 answers:
Helga [31]2 years ago
7 0

All authority is concentrated in a single center in an autocracy, whether it be an individual dictator or a group like a dominating political party or central committee.

<h3>Did countries with strong central governments have more stability than those with weaker administrations?</h3>

Unitary states have a strong central authority, which implies they have separate powers at various levels allowed or delegated to their constituent states.

This type of government could achieve more than autocratic government since, in an autocracy, just one person has absolute power over the state.

Which suggests he or she has complete power over everything, which could result in tragedy and rebellion.

Check out the link below to learn more about autocratic governments;

brainly.com/question/3567237

#SPJ1

grandymaker [24]2 years ago
4 0

During the Great Liberation, Africa saw the birth of more than 50 new nations. Africans have high aspirations for the future across the continent. Africans regained control of their destiny after 70 years of colonial subjugation. The new states took different pathways to modernization. Despite enormous challenges, some people succeeded. Civil conflict, military dictatorship, or corrupt dictators threw many others into chaos. Several African countries have made efforts toward democracy in recent decades.

Following independence, the new African states established regimes fashioned after the former colonial masters. On the other hand, parliamentary systems did not work in Africa as well as in Europe over the centuries. Creating cohesive countries with stable governments has proven to be a difficult task.

Many of the leaders of the new states were liberation heroes. Some people like to create one-party states. They claimed that multiparty systems bred discord, which was frequently true.

Many of these one-party states became repressive, and some liberation leaders became tyrants. Dictators frequently utilized their power to profit themselves and their allies at the nation's expense.

Civil unrest has erupted in numerous countries due to failed policies or corrupt regimes. This resulted in military coups. A coup is the toppling of a government by force. Some coup leaders turned into ruthless dictators. Others attempted to eradicate corruption and improve the situation. Military officials frequently promised that civilian government would be restored. Nonetheless, in many cases, they only relinquished control after another coup.

Many African countries were shifting away from strongman rule by the 1990s. Africans planned democratic elections and demanded them. Independent newspapers emerged in various countries, with their editors risking arrest for their articles. Religious leaders advocated for more freedom. Outside pressures were also a factor. Before awarding funds for economic development, Western governments and lenders, such as the World Bank, requested political reforms.

Some administrations responded by allowing opposition parties to form and lifting censorship. Multi-party elections were held in countries Benin, removing long-serving leaders.

Even after African countries gained independence, colonial powers and foreign enterprises typically held control of their former colonies' businesses and resources. Many new states remained reliant on their previous colonial overlords for aid, trade, and investment.

You might be interested in
what was the difference between Abraham Lincoln's personal opinion if slavery and his professional intentions regarding slavery?
Debora [2.8K]

Answer:

Concerning an issue on slavery, Lincoln looked a rather controversial figure. On the one hand, he advocated the abolition of slavery; on the other, he did not support the idea of ​​social and political equality of the black and white races.  " I am not, and have never been, a supporter of achieving the social and political equality of the white and black races. “I am not, and have never been, a supporter of black people, like voters or jurors, and allowing them to hold public office,” said Lincoln.   However, in his opinion, it is unthinkable when one person works hard and the other appropriates the fruits of his labor.

Explanation:

6 0
3 years ago
Who murdered Alexander Hamilton
Zielflug [23.3K]
Aaron Burr! Hope that helps
5 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Why did French citizens approve of Napoleon’s reforms?
True [87]

Answer:

From 1799 to 1815, Napoleon Bonaparte would dominate France and Europe.  A hero to some, an evil force to others, he gave his name to the final phase of the revolution.

Napoleon:

Born in Corsica, a French-ruled island in the Mediterranean.

At the age of nine, he was sent to France to be trained for a military career.

Favored the Jacobins, by the age of 20 he quickly rose through the military ranks as a lieutenant.

Despite his military success Napoleon’s attempted invasion of Egypt was a disaster.  He was able to hide his failed attempt from France b establishing a network of spies and censoring the press.

Explanation:

7 0
3 years ago
What were the major points of disagreement between the federalist and the anti-federalists regarding the U.S. constitution? How
QveST [7]

The differences between the Federalists and the Antifederalists are vast and at times complex. Federalists’ beliefs could be better described as nationalist. The Federalists were instrumental in 1787 in shaping the new US Constitution, which strengthened the national government at the expense, according to the Antifederalists, of the states and the people. The Antifederalists opposed the ratification of the US Constitution, but they never organized efficiently across all thirteen states, and so had to fight the ratification at every state convention. Their great success was in forcing the first Congress under the new Constitution to establish a bill of rights to ensure the liberties that the Antifederalists felt the Constitution violated.

The Bill of Rights is a list of 10 constitutional amendments that secure the basic rights and privileges of American citizens. They include the right to free speech, the right to a speedy trial, the right to due process under the law, and protections against cruel and unusual punishments. To accommodate Anti-Federalist concerns of excessive federal power, the Bill of Rights also reserves any power that is not given to the federal government to the states and to the people.

Since its adoption, the Bill of Rights has become the most important part of the Constitution for most Americans. In Supreme Court cases, the Amendments are debated more frequently than the Articles. They have been cited to protect the free speech of Civil Rights activists, protect Americans from unlawful government surveillance, and grant citizens Miranda rights during arrest. It is impossible to know what our republic would look like today without the persistence of the Anti-Federalists over two hundred years ago.


5 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
On page 13, the author says that the Tlaxcalan leaders joined the Spanish conquistadors. What does this suggest about the relati
Harrizon [31]

The correct answer to this open question is the following.

Unfortunately, you forgot to include the information about page 13, or the excerpt of the text so we could know what is this about. We do not know what was n page 13, just you know it.

However, trying to help you we can comment based on our knowledge of this topic.

The Tlaxcalan leaders joined the Spanish conquistadors. What this suggests about the relationship between the Tlaxcalans and the Aztecs was that teh Tlaxcalans were enemies of teh Aztecs.

And this is correct because the Aztecs were great warriors that wage war and took prisoners. The Great Aztec Empire was a dominant one, and force other Mesoamerican Indian tribes to pay tribute. So we can say that those other small tribes or less powerful tribes had to pay tribute if they wanted to be on peaceful terms with the Aztecs.

That is why the Tlaxcalans and other tribes such as teh Chilollans decide to join forces with Hernan Cortés and teh Spanish conquerors. Together, they showed strong opposition to the Aztecas. And that was a good advantage, considered that the Spanish conquerors had horses, spades, blades, and fire weapons that impressed the Native Indians.

3 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • How did Stone Age people use technology to adapt and survive?
    7·1 answer
  • Read the following passage and answer the question:
    11·1 answer
  • Why did Andrew Jackson fail to win the presidency?
    8·1 answer
  • Which major problem did the Roman Empire face in the late second and third centuries?
    12·1 answer
  • BRAINLIESTTT ASAP!!!
    14·1 answer
  • Which of the following two groups formed an alliance with the French in the mid-1700s?
    13·1 answer
  • As the second president of the United States, Adams had big shoes to fill. But why might it have been even more difficult for Ge
    11·2 answers
  • Buddha is least evident in country of?
    10·2 answers
  • If the governor of Georgia vetoes a bill, it can still become law through an override by
    9·1 answer
  • In the United States today, do you think our government matches Madison’s vision and fulfills his hopes? Are “factions” a proble
    11·2 answers
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!